- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
- May/28/24 12:38:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in essence, we are debating this issue today and did so yesterday because of an incident. That is what caused it. Here is what the Liberal Party—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 8:17:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I think it is important that we recognize that it was on March 1 that the House made an order indicating that we would be having the vote today at 7:15 p.m., an hour ago. Every member understood before the recess that the vote would be taking place this evening.
The other issue I have is this: Take a look at the purpose of opposition days and at the process we have witnessed today. There is no new element being introduced to the motion, and I will expand on that right away. What is important is to recognize the process that has gotten us to this point.
The NDP introduced a motion. There was a great deal of debate on it. There were all sorts of crossover discussions taking place, and at the end of the day, the government House leader moved an amendment. That amendment, which is completely within scope, was accepted by the member for Edmonton Strathcona. The Speaker reread the amendment and then ruled that it was, in fact, in order, as has been done previously on many different opposition days.
I take exception when members opposite try to give the false impression that it is out of scope. Let me give a very specific example. When they stood on the point of order to try to filibuster a vote, they made reference to the fact that the Gaza issue is a very important aspect of the amendment. Let us go to what the motion actually says about Gaza and ask how they could imply that the amendment would in any way be out of scope.
I would refer people to part (viii): “the forcible transfer and violent attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank have significantly increased in recent months”. How could they say that an amendment dealing with the West Bank is, in fact, out of scope, when it is actually in the motion that has been presented?
We can go further, to part (g): “ban extremist settlers”. Again, how could we not identify that this is also a part of Gaza?
I go to part (h): “advocate for an end to the decades-long occupation of Palestinian territories and work toward a two-state solution”.
I would argue against the very premise. After the Speaker agreed everything was in order, and the vote was just about to occur, a member stood up and brought up an issue, saying that the amendment is not within scope. In fact it is, and Gaza is actually mentioned, if members had listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs when she made her presentation to the House, and to where other members even make reference to both Gaza and the West Bank.
I would suggest not only that it is within the scope but also that we have an order from March 1 saying that the vote should occur today at 7:15 p.m. I would suggest that we get on with it and vote.
510 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 1:18:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what saddens me is the fact that, with such an important issue that is taking place in the world today, as a group of parliamentarians we are having to debate a motion of this nature. I would rather have seen the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs try to build some form of consensus and then, through that consensus, bring it to the floor of the House of Commons.
I think there is a lot to be said about unity. At a time when Canadians are looking for leadership on issues such as this that are having such a profound impact, can the member opposite give any sort of indication whether there was any dialogue between him and the New Democratic Party with respect to the motion we have before us today? Was there any form of an attempt to do something of this nature in the standing committee, as opposed to trying to politicize the issue inside the chamber?
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 12:59:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the minister's comments on what is a very sensitive issue. This is a heart-wrenching issue, which Canadians listen to virtually on a daily basis when they check in with the news and other types of forums.
When we reflect on Canadian values, the speech I heard from the minister was very much a reflection of Canadian values. However, Canadians are having a difficult time, and we have seen an uptick in issues of racial incidents on all sides.
I am wondering if the minister can provide her thoughts on how we can try to move forward and provide that sense of comfort that, as a government, we are taking a position in which Canadians can have that confidence in the government, particularly that we are working with our allied countries.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether the deputy House leader would be able to give his perspective on where the Conservative Party is on the child care issue. I know in the last federal election, there were members who were saying they would rip up the agreements we were putting into place, and then they kind of waffled. They were really critical inside the chamber. I think at one point they might even have voted in favour. I have no idea where they actually are on the issue of Bill C-35.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 1:18:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I pointed out, and will reinforce, that three standing committees have been looking at the ArriveCAN issue. Different internal departments have been looking at it from day one when it was first discovered. There are also at least two, going on three, independent offices of Parliament that investigated it and provided reports. They are looking into the matter on an ongoing basis. The House is deeply engaged on the issue, and we, like me and the member opposite, want answers and will continue to push for answers until we ultimately get the answers we are looking for.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 12:28:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are two issues. There is the issue of the procurement process, and I will get into that. Quite frankly, my constituents would be very much concerned about how a company would be able to get these types of contracts and they would ultimately question the real value of those contracts.
One way we can find out is to look at where this company comes from. This company was not just created in the last few years; it has been around for a number of years. It was created under Stephen Harper. This is a company where the board received contracts, many contracts, under the Stephen Harper government. Would the member not agree that we should get a better sense in terms of—
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 12:14:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, just very briefly, the outsourcing issue is something that governments both present and past, at the national level and at the provincial level, have actually been involved in. All political parties participate in it. I suspect that one would even find New Democratic administrations that have outsourced to Deloitte and Touche, just so that is on the record. The amounts might vary, obviously.
If we take a look at everything that has been done on ArriveCAN, a number of standing committees have been investigating it and thousands of pieces of information have been provided; we have had departments internally and we have had independent offices of Parliament looking at it.
I am wondering if the member feels that there is still a need to continue to try to create more information on the file.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member emphasized how this is a deeply personal issue, to use her words. That is why, at the beginning of my comments earlier today before question period, I tried to amplify why it is so important that the House reflect on what brought us here today.
I reflect on the debates that took place in early 2016, which were conducted in more of a non-partisan approach where members of all political parties talked about what is a very important issue. Nothing has changed in the sense of the importance of the issue. We are talking about an issue of death, and we see that Conservatives are putting a twist on it in an attempt to politicize the issue to the degree that there is some silliness as to what is being implied.
I like to think that anyone who is even entertaining the idea of accessing MAID takes it very seriously. That is the reason why, in good part, I believe that every member of the House, party politics aside, should be looking at what the Supreme Court of Canada right back to 2015, and the Charter of Rights, said our responsibility is as legislators: to come forward with good, sound public policy. I believe that over the years, including today with Bill C-62, we have been addressing a very important issue and that the three-year extension is needed because of the response we are getting from stakeholders, in particular our provinces.
253 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 3:20:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is really important that we do not try to trivialize the important issue of MAID.
I have witnessed Conservatives, many different Conservatives, standing to talk about MAID as something that someone could just go to the doctor today and say, “Jeez, I would like to be able to commit suicide. Can I have an appointment on Friday?” It may not have been in those exact words, but that is very close to what Conservative members have implied in the chamber today, and they have implied it previously.
It does a great disservice to the issue at hand. I would suggest that this whole “suicide on demand” the Conservative members want to classify it as is not contributing positively to the debate. I would ask Conservative members, in particular, to take the debate more seriously, and let us not go to the extreme. I have more confidence in health care professionals, social workers, family members or the individuals who are thoroughly consulted well before any sort of a decision is made.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not too sure if the member actually understood the question that was just posed to him. It points out a major issue within the Conservative Party. The Conservatives have said that they do not support it, yet they did not vote in favour of the motion that ultimately, by it passage, will guarantee that this motion is able to pass Bill C-62.
What is the essence of Bill C-62? It is to provide a three-year waiting period, so the concern that he has does not take effect come March 17 this year. If this legislation does not pass, what the Conservatives are complaining about will actually turn into a reality. One would think that they would understand that. I can appreciate that a majority, in listening to the discussion, is of the same opinion as the member across the way. If they support what they say, then they should support Bill C-62. If they do not vote for Bill C-62 and the bill does not pass, there will be no three-year extension.
I am very disappointed in the manner in which this issue is being debated. It is a very serious issue. I remind members that the reason we have the debate today is because of a Supreme Court of Canada decision back in 2015, which the then prime minister Stephen Harper did not act upon. That was back in early 2015.
After the 2015 general election, when we assumed office in November 2015, one of the first things we did was look at the legislative agenda. We did some positive things, but one of the things we had to deal with was the Supreme Court of Canada decision, which the Conservatives actually ignored. That meant we had to bring in MAID legislation. It was not an option.
Is there a member of the Conservative Party today who would stand up and say that there was an actual option, that we did not have to respect the Charter of Rights, the rights that are guaranteed to Canadians from coast to coast to coast?
If one reflects on the debates that took place back then, it is quite the opposite with respect to what we are witnessing today. Back then—
380 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to a very important issue. This is a deeply personal and complex issue, one that has had a great deal of debate in the House for number of years now.
We are not directly speaking to that. Rather, we are speaking to the motion that would enable the government to get the MAID issue resolved for the next few years. The motion would ensure that the legislation actually passes. I will give a little background on that.
There is a time limit for us to ultimately get Bill C-62 passed in order to fulfill our commitment to the court. Obviously, we want to keep the law validated, appropriately. The motion we have brought forward today would allow for the House, while providing some time for the Senate, to pass and give royal assent to the bill before the House breaks in March for a couple of weeks. In essence, it allows for a little more debate this week, when it will ultimately pass.
It would then afford the Senate, in the week following the break, the ability to deal with the legislation and hopefully pass it without amendment. This is very important, as that would then enable the legislation to receive royal assent before the deadline.
I know some members may be a little uncomfortable with respect to this programming motion before us today, the limitations that it puts on members and the importance of the subject matter itself. As some members may recall, last week I stood in my place and asked for unanimous consent to sit late in the evening. That way, members would have had more opportunity to have debate on this issue. Unfortunately, we did not get unanimous consent. As a direct result, we have to work within the time frame of when the House allows us to sit. As a result, in order to meet the deadline, we have brought in a programming motion.
I made reference to the very beginning, about when we started to talk about the issue of medical assistance in dying. It came up in 2015. A Supreme Court of Canada decision, Carter v. Canada, made it very clear that we, as a government, and Canadians, through the Charter of Rights, needed MAID legislation. That was decided midway through 2015, but no action was taken, knowing full well that we had to bring in a law to address what the Supreme Court had put in place.
We all know that an election took place. Shortly after that election, it was made very clear that as a government we needed to bring in the legislation. An approach was made to the Supreme Court to take into consideration what had taken place over the last number of months following its decision, including an election.
The Supreme Court ultimately provided grace to the House of Commons so that we could, in fact, get the necessary legislation brought forward to the chamber and ultimately passed. We did have to ask for yet another extension back then. I do not think that surprised anyone.
From the day we can recall, in 2015, there was a great deal of discussion that had taken place. In fact, I suspect, if one were to take a look at the different pieces of legislation, today, we call it Bill C-62, and the original legislation was Bill C-14. We have had legislation in between those bills, which the government had to bring into the House.
On occasion, when the government brings in legislation for debate, there is fairly extensive debate not only in the chamber but also in committees. I can remember, quite vividly, a lot of the debate, the issue for which the special committee was put together to deal with the issue and to provide some thoughts, recommendations and ideas to the chamber and the members who were directly involved.
There is no lack of interest or input from the many different stakeholders, of all different natures, in every region of the country. Everyone had an opinion on the issue. In the end, the amount of dialogue that went into the legislation and the creation of MAID, was probably greater than 90% of all other forms of legislation that come to the House.
We saw that in the passion of the debates presented at the time by members of Parliament on all sides of the House. It was not just Liberals, New Democrats, Conservatives or the Bloc, or even the leader of the Green Party at the time, where one could see the emotional toll of the debate. That is why I talk about it being of a very deep, personal nature. There are complex choices and decisions that have to be made on this.
When I reflect on that debate, there were tears inside the chamber. There were all sorts of emotions as members tried, in the best way they could, to explain why they were taking their positions on it. Different members voted for different reasons and so forth.
In the end, Bill C-14 ultimately passed, after many hours of debate inside and outside. When I say outside, I go even further than outside of standing committees. There were emails, correspondence and discussions that I had on this issue, and it was fairly intense. People wanted to know how I felt about it. I am sure all members of Parliament were questioned about what they had to say on the legislation.
I do have differing opinions from members across the way and maybe even, quite possibly, within my own caucus. I genuinely believe that the need for MAID is there. There is no question about that.
However, where I fall on the side that it seems to be acceptable, at least for a good percentage of people I represent, is to have trust and confidence in our system of health care professionals, social workers and support people whom family members go to when the time comes to make difficult decisions, such as another family member, a local pastor or anyone else. Having that confidence has allowed me to feel comfortable as we have gone through this legislation, virtually from day one.
There was a need for changes. To bring in substantive legislation for the first time that so profoundly impacts the lives of Canadians and to expect that the legislation would be perfect and would not require change is somewhat naive. That is in fact what took place. There was a need to make some changes to the legislation. That is why, ultimately, we had the second go-round of the legislation.
There was a fairly wide discussion on that second attempt and, through amendments, something that is now very challenging was brought in, which deals with mental health as a sole condition for MAID. I know that has stirred the emotions of a lot of members and, ultimately, when the legislation passed to allow it, there was a lot more resistance to it than there was to Bill C-14. It did not surprise me, because of the delicacy of the issue.
Again, I fell back to what I believe a vast majority of my constituents are comfortable with, which are the health care professionals and others, because I am not a medical doctor. I do not understand the issue to the same depth as do the different professionals. As a direct result, I feel more comfortable taking the same position as the government took on the issue.
However, we also need to recognize the reality that other jurisdictions are very concerned about the implementation and about the degree to which we are ready to implement the legislation that was passed. That is really the crux of it. Therefore, we have Bill C-62 today, which would allow for that ongoing exemption to continue. That would enable the system, which is large and complex, to ensure that everything is ready. Then, if the legislation takes effect, people would not be let down, and we would still be able to meet the constitutional requirements. Let us remember that the amendment to the original legislation, in part, came from an appeal court in the province of Quebec, which obligated members of the House to bring forward other legislation.
I know my friend opposite, from the Conservative Party, says that we had a choice and that we could have appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. As a number of them said, we could have attempted to kick the can down the road. Ultimately, it was a decision made and supported by a majority of members of Parliament in the House. Even though the Liberal government had a majority, when it came to Bill C-14, members know full well there were members from all sides who supported it.
Today we have a minority situation, and the only way we can pass legislation through to have the support of other political entities inside the chamber. I would like to think that what we learned through this process has enabled us to look at other things we have been able to do directly.
During many hours of the debates, people talked about palliative care, hospice care and about the lack of that type of care being provided to the people of Canada. It has been a genuine concern for many years, probably a good 20-plus years, where we needed to see more invested in hospice and in palliative care.
Far too often we see individuals who are panelled in our hospitals because there is no place for them to go outside of the hospital. If we look at what took place during the pandemic, we saw that care facilities had to close the doors to people from outside to protect those on the inside. Those on the inside were often dying prematurely, and we know that as fact. Organizations like the Canadian Forces or the Red Cross were involved.
If we take a look at the bigger holistic picture, are we collectively, and contrary to what some might say, it is not just Ottawa, doing enough to be able to deal with these social issues that Canadians have a high standard for? They want politicians of all political stripes and of all levels of government to invest more resources. I am talking about not only money, but also time and debate.
There are probably better ways in which we could spend some of the money that is spent in areas such as health care, social services and so forth. One could take a look at the process for someone who might, first, end up in a hospital situation, and while in the hospital, they find out that things are not good and that their life is going to come to an end in a relatively short time.
One of the things that happen is that hospitals can provide only so much in terms of treatment. There is no consistency within a province, let alone the nation, as to which individuals are being kept in the hospital. Because there are not enough supports in a home atmosphere and there is no other place for an individual to go, far too often they become panelled in a hospital facility in one form or another. I believe the debates we have seen on MAID amplify that.
These are the types of discussions and debates that we should be having, not only here in Ottawa but also in our communities and at the different legislatures. Quite frankly, there are some fairly significant stakeholders out there who also have to play a role, like non-profit organizations. That is what I recall about some of the discussions we have been having over the years in regard to MAID legislation. Unfortunately, as I pointed out, the original thoughts in regard to MAID and the need for us to bring in legislation and the types of debates that we saw then are in contrast to today, as it is becoming more of a politicized issue. Politics seems to be more important than the issue itself in some ways.
That is why at the very beginning I referred to the fact that it is not a good thing that we had to bring in a programming motion, but it is important that we do it today, because we were not successful at getting the consensus required to be able to sit longer to allow for a consensus to emerge as to how the legislation could pass through the system. However, we still have an opportunity. The motion talks about going to the Standing Committee on Health as the subject matter.
When this motion passes, it will enable the Standing Committee on Health, as its first priority in terms of the resources of the House, to meet. A minister will in fact be there for a good hour. There will be an opportunity to have a few other witnesses. It will ultimately have to go through the committee. If we can get this motion passed, after this legislation goes through committee it will come back here to the House of Commons for third reading later this week, before being dealt with in the Senate in the last week of February to March 1. That time frame will enable it to ultimately get the necessary royal assent in order for it to be enacted into law.
Based on what the legislation would actually do, I would think that the Conservatives, in particular, would support it. The essence of the legislation is to put in a three-year extension. It provides for particular provinces and jurisdictions to be able to get things in a better state of readiness, so that, at the end of that period of time, we are able to provide the types of services that are necessary. This means, in good part, that there will be ample time for us to continue to have that dialogue and debate, and if there is a need to do and bring forward other things, whether it is through private members' business or government business, that there are opportunities. However, I suspect, by passing Bill C-62, that a sound majority of the House will be content with the modernization, if I can put it that way, of the legislation.
In one part, it reminds me of the issue of the suicide crisis helpline, and I say that for two reasons.
One reason is that some members often will make reference to how the legislation as a whole is enabling individuals to virtually have suicide upon request, which is just not the case. We know that is not the case, and the members who say it know that is not the case but unfortunately we still see some members give that false impression. I find that to be somewhat unfortunate, because it is definitely misleading and does a disservice in terms of the legislation and the thorough process that we have gone through. I cannot imagine the number of hours, and we are talking three digits and more of hours of different types of discussions in many different forums. To try to simplify it by calling it “suicide on demand” does a great disservice to the legislation and to the law that we currently have in place.
The reason I bring up the suicide helpline is that someone indicated to me that there are people who, at times in their lives, give it thought. When they heard about the MAID legislation, they made inquiries, and because of those inquiries they were able to get the type of assistance that made things better for them. In other words, MAID legislation, on occasion, I would ultimately argue, has actually even saved lives.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, a doctor in the House laughs at that. I do not believe it is a laughing matter. I think the member should reflect in terms of all the debates and discussions—
2679 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 12:54:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will start off by providing a thought in regards to the seriousness of the issue. I would like to think—
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:22:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that the Speaker in the chair at the time indicated that she would look into this and report back to the House. To continue with misinformation on such a sensitive issue does a disservice. The member should be waiting until the Speaker comes back with his ruling on the very issue the member raises.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 5:47:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we spent, in second reading, a great deal of time with a focus on the agricultural industry, and justifiably so given the nature of the bill. However, the whole issue of the right to repair goes far beyond just the agricultural community. I wonder if the member might want to share some thoughts on that particular issue.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 12:28:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think we have to compare apples to apples. The United States has a very different situation with human trafficking than Canada. We both have an issue in dealing with it and responsibilities.
I do not necessarily know all the details the member is making reference to. I suspect that he might be comparing apples to oranges.
59 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 11:16:14 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if it helps facilitate things, I suggest that we go to the next speaker. If the member is able to get the issue rectified, we can always come back to her if she has leave to do so.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 12:35:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when we think about what is happening in Quebec today, in fact in all of Canada, the things that come to my constituents' minds deal with issues such as health care, seniors, the pandemic, what is taking place in Europe, our environment and so much more. This is an issue, as I pointed out earlier, that I have not been approached about in 10 years. No one has even raised the issue with me, yet the Bloc seems to want to make this the issue.
Does the member genuinely believe that this issue is more important than all of the other issues that I just listed, and that the people of Quebec would support this particular motion being debated when there are so many other issues that the people of Quebec and Canada are facing today?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 11:22:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member has been around for a number of years, as I have. That is why I tried to emphasize the last 10 years. If memory serves me correctly, I can honestly say that, since I became a parliamentarian over 30 years ago, it has not been an issue. If we look at it from that perspective and see what is happening around the world and in our nation today, whether it is a court ruling in the United States, a war in Europe or a worldwide pandemic, there is so much more we could have been debating today. I just see this as a lost opportunity.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
