//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1832KevinSorensonHon.Kevin-SorensonBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SorensonKevin_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPhysician-Assisted DyingInterventionHon. Kevin Sorenson (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, this will be the last time I ever present a petition in the House. I want to thank you for your services as Chair.I rise today to present a number of petitions on behalf of my colleague, my seatmate and my friend, the member for Langley—Aldergrove.In the first, the petitioners call upon Parliament to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience for physicians and health care institutions from coercion or intimidation to provide or refer for assisted suicide or euthanasia.Assisted suicideDoctorsEuthanasiaFreedom of conscience and religionHospitalsMedical assistance in dyingPetition 421-04598Petition 421-04599Petition 421-04600Petition 421-04601Petition 421-04602Petition 421-04603Petition 421-04604Petition 421-04605Petition 421-04606Petition 421-04607Petition 421-04608Petition 421-04609Petition 421-04610Petition 421-04611600316760031686003169GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestKevinSorensonHon.Battle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski: (2245)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is my last speech, and I do apologize. It was just the terminology that slipped out.Years ago we learned that we had to give respect to the prisoners. They had to be treated properly. That is no different today. I realize that Bill C-83 is trying to do that in a number of areas. As our colleagues in the Senate have said, there are some things that need to be corrected. I hate to say it, but the Liberals are not listening again.My primary purpose in getting up today is to say that the women and men who work in our institutions do a great job for our country. They are a fantastic group of people. In many cases, maybe even more than police officers who are out on the street or our military who might be defending some country somewhere, these guys are right on the front lines. A lot of our prisoners are everyday common people. We do not need to worry too much about them. They are civil. We can have great conversations with them. We can joke around with them. However, we do have some real bad apples there. Some have mental health problems. Some are just downright mean. Some can be rehabilitated. Some, and I am going back to 50 years of experience, cannot be rehabilitated or do not want to be rehabilitated, and that is where the problem comes with segregation.I know that the Supreme Court has ruled that we need to change our policies. We need to give prisoners more rights, but that will come at a cost to the country. I guess we will have to accept that, because that is what it has ruled.However, the primary thing is that I want my friends and my constituents who work at Grande Cache Institution to be safe. I want the average prisoner who is there, who maybe was picked up for impaired driving or maybe something minor, who is not really a bad person, to be very safe in our institutions. That is my primary concern.My colleagues across have been given a number of recommendations from the Senate that I think need to be addressed and cannot be ignored. I did not pick up on all of them, and I am not going to deal with all of them. However there is one I thought I would spend a little time talking about. The Senate said that the authority should be left with the institutions as to the movement of a prisoner to a provincial institution. That is only rational, good, common sense. I am not knocking professional health people. They do a great job for us, but we have some great con artists in our jails who could sweet talk the Speaker into letting them sit up there while the Speaker took their place. That is how good they are. I know that the Speaker would never be conned. However, that is where my fear comes in. The institution staff know these people. They are dealing with them 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They know how slick the prisoners can be.A medical professional coming in, maybe for an hour or two or maybe three hours a week, could be baffled. That is why I think it was a very wise decision that came back from the Senate. It was a common-sense correction, yet it is being ignored.I appreciate being given the time to stand up here to defend the institutional guards at Grande Cache and others across the country. They are doing a great job for us.(2250)Get rid of the needles. I am not going any further with that. It is the biggest mistake we ever made.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsHospitalsImprisonment and prisonersMental health60041126004113AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgStatements by MembersConcordia HospitalInterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): (1405)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Concordia Hospital's 90 years of service to northeast Winnipeg. In 1928, a group of newcomers came together to open a maternity hospital. It was such a success that it has been either moving or expanding ever since. lt opened its current location in 1974, and since then has become a centre of excellence in hip and knee surgery. It opened Concordia Place, offering more personal care home beds to northeast Winnipeg, and its emergency room has offered needed care to people in crisis. Unfortunately, the provincial Conservative government plans to close the ER in the new year. Other ERs in Winnipeg have been replaced with urgent care centres, but for some reason, northeast Winnipeg has been singled out to be the only part of the city losing 24-7 access to care. People of northeast Winnipeg have been pushing back. We deserve the same access to care as every other part of the city, and if the Conservatives cared at all about northeast Winnipeg, they would give their heads a shake and keep the Concordia ER open.AnniversaryConcordia HospitalHealth services accessibilityHospitalsStatements by MembersWinnipeg55957245595725BillCaseyCumberland—ColchesterAdamVaughanSpadina—Fort York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84672TedFalkTed-FalkProvencherConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkTed_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC): (1810)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-46. Just as clarification for folks watching on television, this is not the bill to legalize marijuana, but the bill to deal with offences related to the conveyance, and also to deal with offences and procedures related to impaired driving for both cannabis and alcohol.It is important to note at the outset that the Conservatives support measures that protect Canadians from impaired drivers. Impaired driving has needlessly taken away too many lives far too early. Unfortunately impaired driving remains one of the most frequent criminal offences and it is among the leading criminal causes of death in Canada. The legalization of marijuana must be considered with this reality in mind. Let me be very clear. I do not support the legalization of marijuana. The Conservative Party has adopted a much more measured, responsible approach to keep minor marijuana possession illegal but to make it a ticketable offence. This is a position that has long been adopted by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. However, if Liberal backbenchers are willing to support the Prime Minister's dangerous proposal, which sadly appears to be the case, we have a moral responsibility to soberly consider the consequences of legalizing marijuana in so many areas of Canadian life, including on the safety of motorists on our roadways.As I said, we on this side of the House always have supported measures that protect Canadians from impaired drivers. The mandatory fines and higher maximum penalties send a strong message that Canadians will not tolerate impaired driving. Indeed, this is the type of common-sense legislation the Conservatives regularly brought forward when we were in government and the Liberals opposed. I am pleased to see that on this issue the Liberals seem to have come around somewhat, but we also know there are many factors to take into consideration other than just penalties, and those concerns must also be addressed.For one thing, the Liberal government has indicated that it plans to rush both Bill C-45, the legalization of marijuana, and Bill C-46, this legislation, through Parliament by July 2018. This is a hurried and unrealistic legislative timeline that puts the health and safety of Canadians at great risk, given the immensity of the task and the volume of the questions that have been left unanswered. One such challenge lies with law enforcement. While I certainly have confidence in our law enforcement officers, as is to be expected with such radical change, police do not currently have the resources or the training required to manage the increased threat of impaired driving associated with the legalization of marijuana. Moving forward with this legislation prior to properly resourcing and training police in a classic “cart before the horse” scenario but with profoundly dangerous and deadly consequences is reckless. The chair of the Liberals' marijuana task force has said that the best solution for the issue of impaired driving is to give researchers additional time to develop proper detection tools, yet time is something the Liberals seem unwilling to give. Addressing these issues must be a priority of the Liberal government long before legalization, and adequate time is needed to get it right. The marijuana task force report highlights a number of the complications that exist when it comes to cannabis-impaired driving. “It is clear that cannabis impairs psychomotor skills and judgment”, it reads, before launching into a list of considerations when it comes into actual testing for impairment. Here are several of the points raised. While scientists agree that THC, or the tetrahydrocannabinol, impairs driving performance, the level of THC in bodily fluids cannot be used to reliably indicate the degree of impairment or crash risk. Whereas evidence was gathered over many years to arrive at an established metric for alcohol intoxication, the blood alcohol concentration levels, these types of data do not exist for cannabis. In contrast to alcohol, THC can remain in the brain and body of chronic heavy users of cannabis for prolonged periods of time, sometimes several days or even weeks, far beyond the period of acute impairment, potentially contributing to a level of chronic impairment. Some heavy, regular users of cannabis, including those who use cannabis for medical purposes, may not show any obvious signs of impairment even with significant THC concentrations in their blood. Conversely, infrequent users with the same or lower THC concentrations may demonstrate more significant impairment. There is a significant combination effect when cannabis is consumed with alcohol, leading to a greater level of intoxication and motor control problems than when either substance is consumed individually.(1815)Other challenges exist, including the need to account for the rapid and sharp decline of THC levels in the blood in the hours following consumption through smoking. With edibles, the decline is more gradual. When these complications are coupled with the fact that there is still really no reliable testing device for marijuana impairment, it becomes clear that the July 2018 timeline is pushing the limit. Even with an effective testing device, the task force report noted that there was little agreement among experts on what the limit for THC should be. With this bill, there are more questions than answers. This does not mean that we cannot find answers; it just means that we need more time to research. The report suggested additional research in these areas: to better link the THC levels impairment; to develop effective and reliable roadside testing tools to detect THC levels and help law enforcement enforce the rules that are put in place; and to hire and train more drug recognition experts and officers able to conduct standardized field sobriety tests.Second, as the minister of youth, the Prime Minister should understand that adolescence is a critical time for brain development. Research shows that the brain is not fully developed until around age 25, so youth are especially vulnerable to the effects of cannabis on brain development and function. This is because the THC in cannabis affects the biological system in the brain that directs its development. Health Canada has noted several negative effects of using cannabis, including how:The THC in cannabis can impair your ability to drive safely and operate equipment. It can also increase the risk of falls and other accidents. This is because THC can affect one's coordination, reaction time, ability to pay attention, decision-making abilities, and the ability to judge distances. Health Canada also says:Impairment can last for more than 24 hours after cannabis use, well after other effects may have faded. People who use cannabis regularly may have trouble with certain skills needed to drive safely for weeks after their last use. The consequences for driving are obvious and the potential harm this can cause to young Canadians is alarming. Taking the time we need to consider the long-term impact on young Canadians is so much more important than a self-imposed deadline.Third, public education plays a significant role in ensuring that Canadians do not get behind the wheel when they are impaired. However, we know that even the most effective public education campaign does not achieve success over night. The Liberals have yet to take proper steps to develop effective educational campaigns to deter Canadians from impaired driving. Without a doubt, the government must ensure that Canadians fully understand the risks of impaired driving before moving forward with legislation. When the Prime Minister expressed his intention to push these new laws through Parliament by July of next year, his main concern was not with the safety of motorists on our roads, but instead about the symbolic optics for him and his party. This should not be the focus of the Liberal government with so much at stake for public health and safety. While doing some reading on this issue, I came across several articles that I thought would be helpful contributions to this discussion. In a 2015 Globe and Mail article, data was presented detailing how four emergency rooms in British Columbia surveyed 1,097 drivers and found that cannabis was the most common recreational drug, after alcohol, used among injured drivers; 7.3% were found to have consumed marijuana in the hours preceding their crashes; and 12.6% still showed traces of the drug from earlier use.Another article shared on the Mothers Against Drunk Driving website, originally in the December 9, 2015, edition of The Province, tells the story of a constable from the Abbotsford police reviewing the report from a Saturday night's roadside counter attack effort aimed at combatting impaired driving. This overnight report included four driving suspensions for drivers impaired by marijuana while there were no mentions of drivers impaired by alcohol. The constable even shared about what he called “a 'Cheech & Chong' scenario, where the windows come down and the billowing smoke comes out of the car.”(1820)In the article, Andrew Murie, CEO of MADD, stated, “There’s this impression out there by young people, especially, that they’re safer (driving) stoned than drunk...If you’re high on pot, your skills to drive a motor vehicle are deteriorated and you’re at risk of being in a crash.” It is precisely this sort of myth that must be tackled before marijuana becomes not only more accessible to Canadians, including young people, but more acceptable in a recreational context. It must also be considered in the legislation. Time is what is required, time to study this, time to hear from the experts and get the proper research and data we need. I urge the Liberals to take the appropriate amount of time to engage with Canadians in a public education campaign and to abandon their reckless rush on this legislation.Numerous voices have sent these same messages to the Liberals. In fact, their own marijuana task force recommended extensive marijuana and impaired driving education and awareness campaigns before the drug's legalization, noting in its report, “Public opinion research shows that youth and some adults do not understand the risks of cannabis use.” Worse yet, youth underestimate the risks of cannabis use. The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health points out that cannabis affects a person's ability to drive by impairing depth perception, attention span, and concentration, slowing reaction time, decreasing muscle strength, and hand steadiness. Do Canadians, and Canadian youth in particular, know these essential facts? The Canadian Automobile Association concurs on the need for public education and adds “It’s clear from the report that work needs to start immediately in these areas, and that the actual legalization should not be rushed.”In the states of Washington and Colorado, public education campaigns did not begin until two years after legalization. The task force report noted, “Officials from both states strongly advised starting educational campaigns as soon as possible.”As a Globe and Mail article highlights, both states have “seen significant increases in the proportion of fatal accidents involving drivers who tested positive for the drug.” It goes on to say, “the percentage of those accidents in which the drivers tested positive for marijuana increased considerably.”Colorado saw about 10% of drivers involved in fatal accidents test positive for the drug in 2010. In 2014, a year after recreational marijuana sales were legalized, that percentage nearly doubled. A similar doubling occurred in Washington in the same period from about 6% to 12%. Without a proper public education campaign, this legislation will lead to the same tragic mistakes seen in these two jurisdictions.The task force also identified a need for immediate investment and to work with the provinces and territories to develop a national, comprehensive public education strategy to send a clear message to Canadians that cannabis caused impairment and the best way to avoid driving impaired was not to consume. The strategy is also to inform Canadians about the dangers of cannabis-impaired driving, with special emphasis on youth and the applicable laws and the ability of law enforcement to detect cannabis use.Much can be learned from the way public education has changed the way Canadians look at drinking and driving. Although we still have far too many tragic incidents, there is a better understanding of the consequences of alcohol-impaired driving today than there has been historically.(1825)If legalization proceeds without taking into account the lessons learned from drunk driving prevention education, including the amount of time it took for public education campaigns to yield meaningful results, it will be a fatal mistake.I want to reiterate that I have many serious concerns about the legalization of marijuana. If the Liberals are going to move forward with this legislation, it is incumbent upon all of us to lay the proper groundwork for the protection of the Canadian motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians who share our roads.We must also ensure that young people understand the risks inherent in marijuana usage so that we can avoid needless loss of life based on myths that suggest that marijuana causes somewhat less impairment than alcohol. These assertions must be countered with the truth for the safety of everyone. The Liberals must abandon their politically motivated, rushed timeline to allow more time to prepare for the consequences of marijuana legalization and to ensure that Canadians are protected from impaired drivers.This legislation is being rushed to committee. It is being rushed through the House. The debate has been curtailed. As Conservatives, the right thing to do is to support it, because we know that the Liberals are going to push it through anyway. We need to get it to committee. We need to study it thoroughly. We need to bring in expert testimony. We need to consider the effects cannabis could have on our youth. We need to consider whether the age limit is correct as is currently prescribed in the legislation. The medical community has indicated very clearly that the brain is developing until the age of 25 and that the early use of marijuana does irreparable damage to the brain. The medical community strongly suggests that we not legalize marijuana prior to the age of 21, yet the Liberal government has recklessly proceeded with legislation that would legalize it at the age of 18.The Liberals have said that they want to keep marijuana out of the hands of children and youth. I would suggest that it currently is not as abundantly found in homes as it would be once this legislation was passed. People would be allowed to have four mature marijuana plants up to 100 centimetres. I do not know if that is 100 centimetres in height or length or what, but if it is actually 100 centimetres in height, they would start growing horizontally, and that would create other problems. We know that four mature marijuana plants also means that there would be non-mature marijuana plants growing in the same household that would reach maturity at different stages. As we heard in earlier testimony, that could mean upwards of 12 marijuana plants per household in Canada. Law enforcement would not make a huge effort to ensure that those limits were maintained. That is going to be problematic.The good thing is that the Liberals are being somewhat proactive with Bill C-46 by at least trying to address the concerns with respect to impaired driving from both cannabis and alcohol.Something that has not been mentioned, at least I have not heard it mentioned, is what the impact will be on employers. I own a construction company that deals with heavy equipment. What burden will this place on employers to properly test that their employees are not coming to work stoned and under the influence of marijuana? When I am looking at machines that operate 150,000 to 200,000 pounds of payload, and I have a guy operating that equipment who is under the influence of cannabis that I cannot properly detect, that is going to put not only him but many others at grave risk.There are lots of things in this legislation that need to be carefully examined. I am hopeful that the Liberals will allow for proper time at committee to examine this legislation carefully and to bring in expert testimony. Contrary to what I have seen at committee in the past, I am hopeful that the Liberals will allow for meaningful amendments to be considered and passed.Alcohol use and abuseBuilding and construction industryC-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other ActsC-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other ActsCannabisDrug educationDrug screening deviceGovernment billsHospitalsImpaired drivingLaw enforcementLegal ageLegalizationMental healthNumbers of deathsPenaltiesPlantsPolitical programsPublic consultationStatisticsTetrahydrocannabinolTraffic accidentsUnited States of AmericaWorkplace health and safetyYoung people4918454BardishChaggerHon.WaterlooBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84672TedFalkTed-FalkProvencherConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkTed_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPhysician-Assisted DyingInterventionMr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions from folks who are very concerned with the physician-assisted suicide legislation that was recently passed. Petitioners ask that the Parliament of Canada enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience for physicians and health care institutions from coercion or intimidation to provide or refer for physician-assisted suicide. Assisted suicideDoctorsEuthanasiaFreedom of conscience and religionHospitalsMedical assistance in dyingPetition 421-00976Petition 421-009774664873FinDonnellyPort Moody—CoquitlamBrigitteSansoucySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89147RandyBoissonnaultRandy-BoissonnaultEdmonton CentreLiberal CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoissonnaultRandy_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionMr. Randy Boissonnault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): (1200)[English]Mr. Speaker, before coming up with this recommendation, the National Capital Commission did a comparative analysis of 12 potential federal sites using 21 criteria. The Tunney's Pasture site best meets the 21 criteria, and its pre-eminence is supported by the most recent data concerning the long-range plans for urban transportation, demographics, and federal land use in the National Capital Region.There were 8,000 people consulted on this, which is 7,999 more than the last government consulted.Government landsHospitalsOral questionsThe Ottawa Hospital46592594659260PierrePoilievreHon.CarletonGabrielSte-MarieJoliette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84672TedFalkTed-FalkProvencherConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkTed_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPhysician-Assisted DyingInterventionMr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, I also have another petition, also signed by many individuals, asking the government to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience for physicians and health care institutions from coercion or intimidation to provide or refer for physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia.Assisted suicideDoctorsEuthanasiaFreedom of conscience and religionHospitalsMedical assistance in dyingPetition 421-008344590696TedFalkProvencherMarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelaga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84672TedFalkTed-FalkProvencherConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkTed_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPhysician-Assisted DyingInterventionMr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition signed by residents of Manitoba, which contains a consistent request with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees the freedom of conscience and the freedom of religion.The petitioners ask that Parliament establish conscience protection for physicians and health care institutions.Assisted suicideDoctorsEuthanasiaFreedom of conscience and religionHospitalsMedical assistance in dyingPetition 421-0065244795624479563CathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84672TedFalkTed-FalkProvencherConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkTed_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPhysician-Assisted DyingInterventionMr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC): (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of Manitoba from various communities. The petitioners are asking the Parliament of Canada to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience for physicians and health care institutions from coercion or intimidation to provide or refer for physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia.I also have a petition similar to it, predominantly from folks inside Winnipeg and communities surrounding Winnipeg to the same note.Assisted suicideDoctorsEuthanasiaFreedom of conscience and religionHospitalsMedical assistance in dyingPetition 421-00503Petition 421-0050444265604426561HaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86261JohnBarlowJohn-BarlowFoothillsConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarlowJohn_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersHigh River Community Cancer CentreInterventionMr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC): (1400)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak about a passionate, young entrepreneur in my riding of Foothills. Tate Barton lost his mom to cancer when he was just six years old. Unfortunately, Tate and his family spent a lot of time in the High River hospital during his mother's last years, but he also saw an opportunity to make a tribute to his mom, in her honour. Over the last three years, Tate has set up his lemonade stand at the annual Little Britches Parade in High River. He has raised more than $10,000 over the last three years, all of which he has contributed to the construction of the new High River cancer clinic. Thanks to Tate, the High River Rotary Club, and the High River District Health Care Foundation, they have raised more than $1 million for this project. Now construction on the much-needed High River Community Cancer Centre is under way and will be completed in November. Okotoks is hosting its own lemonade day on June 11 and I invite all members to support the young entrepreneurs in their communities and to thank Tate and the community of High River for their incomparable spirit.Barton, TateEntrepreneurship and entrepreneursFundraising and fundraisersHigh River Community Cancer CentreHospitalsStatements by Members4409208440920944092104409211SvenSpengemannMississauga—LakeshoreDenisParadisHon.Brome—Missisquoi//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89147RandyBoissonnaultRandy-BoissonnaultEdmonton CentreLiberal CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoissonnaultRandy_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionMr. Randy Boissonnault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): (1200)[English]Mr. Speaker, our government understands emphatically the need for a state-of-the-art hospital in downtown Ottawa and we support that project. For this reason, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has asked the National Capital Commission to review possible sites for the Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus through a rigorous and transparent process in order to provide the government with a recommendation.It is important to note that the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre also supports this project and she and we support a transparent and open process so that a Civic hospital in Ottawa may be built.Government landsHospitalsOral questionsThe Ottawa Hospital43991934399194PierrePoilievreHon.CarletonXavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresINTERVENTIONParliament and SessionOrder of BusinessDiscussed TopicProcedural TermPerson SpeakingProvince / TerritoryCaucusSearchResults per pageOrder byTarget search languageSide by SideMaximum returned rowsPagePUBLICATION TYPE