Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 106 - 120 of 195
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, we have given the House more than ample opportunity to debate this bill. I note that 139 members have spoken for close to 45 hours on this critical piece of legislation.
We did not stop there. We offered to extend debate at least three times, and each time the Conservatives refused. This is over and above the dilatory tactics they have been practising with this bill and other bills for months. They do not want more time; they just want to stop it altogether. The court was clear that it will not grant us another extension.
With regard to mental health, it was always going to be the subject of a parliamentary review. It will still be the subject of a parliamentary review. We have added an expert medical panel to give us expert guidance on it, but ultimately it will be up to parliamentarians to do what was always planned: to study this criterion as it has to be studied before bringing it within the Carter parameters.
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
View Alain Therrien Profile
2021-03-11 15:20 [p.4921]
Mr. Speaker, it is rare for the Bloc Québécois to support a closure motion. Historically, if we look at the list of events involving the Bloc Québécois since its inception, it is extremely rare.
We support the principle on compassionate grounds, because people are suffering while they wait for us to do our job. It is time for us, after so much deliberation, to take action and show compassion.
The Bloc Québécois defends the interests of Quebeckers, and we are interested in their needs only. We acknowledge that, often, the needs of Quebeckers and other Canadians coincide. In Quebec, there is a broad consensus in favour of MAID, and we have been going our own way on this issue for years. For that reason, the Bloc Québécois will support the closure motion.
The Conservatives want more time to debate the issue. Since the report stage of this bill, 67 of the 83 speeches made have been made by the Conservatives. Last week, the government asked three times to extend a sitting into the evening to continue the debate and allow the Conservatives to continue saying what they had to say. All three times, the Conservative Party refused.
The judge extended the deadline a fourth time to give Parliament the time and space it needed to adopt the bill. The judge granted a final extension until March 26, a deadline we must respect. For these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will support the closure motion.
I have a simple question for the Minister of Justice: In his opinion, why is March 26 really our last chance to adopt the bill?
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for La Prairie for his comments. Obviously, I share his opinion that we are here to reduce the suffering of Canadians across the country.
I agree that there is a consensus not only in Quebec, but across Canada. Canada is ready to take the step. As we saw in the debates, and especially in the contribution of the Senate, which I thank, our society is awaiting other changes that go even further. Canada is ready to accept this practice, which is aimed at reducing suffering and showing compassion, and which respects life in a very profound way.
To answer my hon. colleague's question, the Superior Court was clear: There will be no more extensions. It is time that the Conservatives cease their stalling tactics and start putting Canadians before partisanship.
View Matthew Green Profile
NDP (ON)
View Matthew Green Profile
2021-03-11 15:22 [p.4921]
Madam Speaker, there will perhaps be no more serious a vote than the one dealing with medical assistance in dying, and as New Democrats, we are very rarely in favour of closure. We have heard there is a consensus in this country, but I am not clear what country the minister is living in.
The government has failed to deliver the kind of adequate consultations with people in disability communities that would allow for this egregious extension into mental health without reasonable foreseeability. The minister talks about care, compassion and taking care of Canadians, so why does he still continue to fail to listen to the voices of people with disabilities and fail to account for their compassionate care in living, while he rushes through this final decision in their deaths?
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I assure the House and Canadians that nothing could be further from the truth. We consulted widely and deeply, beginning in January 2020, on this phase of the legislation, Bill C-7. We consulted over 300,000 Canadians online. We spread out across the country, from coast to coast to coast, to listen to Canadians who had experience with MAID and to listen to the disability community. Indeed, the very structure of Bill C-7 takes into account what we have heard from the disability community and builds in safeguards for the non-end-of-life scenario, representing the concerns we heard directly from them.
The leadership in the Senate from a senator who lives with a disability is, quite vigorously, evidence that we have indeed listened to and supported that community. With—
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2021-03-11 15:24 [p.4922]
Madam Speaker, this is difficult because I sympathize with the minister. I recognize the March 26 deadline. I sympathize with the leader of the Bloc Québécois and his concerns as well. I completely agree that the Conservatives have used time to block the bill. I saw it.
However, I have to say to the Minister of Justice that this is very difficult, because the Senate amendments represent something entirely new. They are different from what we dealt with at report stage before.
I am asking the minister if he is really satisfied. I am trying to be as non-partisan as possible, but I do not feel it is time for closure.
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I am satisfied that we are still respecting the process we put forward with Bill C-7 that had the general support of Canadians. We have always said that we would be dealing with the question of mental health in a profound way in the parliamentary review that was originally envisaged in 2016. We are still doing that.
We are now benefiting from the work the Senate has done. We will benefit from the work of the committee too. However, at the end of the day, I want to reassure the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that as parliamentarians, we will roll up our sleeves and work through the mental health criterion. That will bring us within the parameters of the Carter decision and will fulfill the right of all Canadians to have access to medical assistance in dying in a reasonable and safeguarded way.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, all members of Parliament have seen their email accounts absolutely blow up. We are receiving tons of emails and phone calls about this issue.
I am going to quickly share one that I received. I think our colleagues really need to take a look at it. They will have it in their emails. It is from Trudo Lemmens, a professor in the faculty of law at the University of Toronto. He said:
I have worked on many challenging health law and ethics issues for more than twenty years as a professor of law and bioethics. But never have I felt the weight of history more seriously as with the debate around the expansion of Medical Assistance in Dying to people with disabilities, including those with mental illness, who would have years or decades of life left, if we as a society provided needed support, rather than a fast-track to state funded and medical system provided end-of-life, and a facilitation of suicide.
Please take seriously your obligation as parliamentarians and ask yourself what a precautionary approach requires. Think what it will do in the long term to the social fabric of our society. Imagine also what you would tell in the future to one of your voters, a neighbour, a family member, if you voted in support of this law and they come to you after they lost a brother, sister, daughter, son, father, mother, or close friend who in a period of serious mental health hardship and without sufficient support of our health care system have indirectly been encouraged by—
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, indeed, I received that email from my long-standing colleague, Professor Lemmens at the University of Toronto.
What I would say to him and to the hon. member is that we are trying to reduce people's suffering and it is a question of autonomy. No matter where one comes from in society, we do not have a right to tell other people that they have to live and suffer simply because we are uncomfortable with something.
The reverse is this. At every step of the way, I, personally, and my government, have tried to help the situation of the disabled to make this a truly autonomous and meaningful choice. There is, in the preamble of this legislation, a reference to that. We are working as a government to improve the situation of people living with disabilities, for example, and are investing in mental health, as we have done and as no government has ever done in Canadian history, simply to make this autonomous choice a meaningful one.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2021-03-11 15:29 [p.4922]
Madam Speaker, one of the more interesting aspects of the government's motion in response to the Senate amendments is the creation of an independent panel of experts to regulate the issue of expanding medical assistance in dying to mental illness as the sole underlying condition—something the Bloc Québécois is far from convinced it is a good idea—as well as the creation of a joint committee to discuss the safeguards. The Bloc Québécois supports advance requests, but we think that at this stage in our work, it is time to go to committee.
I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Given that there is a broad consensus in Quebec on permitting advance requests for medical assistance in dying and there are a lot of questions about mental illness, why did he expand medical assistance in dying to mental illness and then not permit advance requests in cases such as Alzheimer's? What are the legal reasons?
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montcalm for his question and his valuable work on this file.
We created a committee of experts to help us, but it is up to us, as parliamentarians working in the joint committee and in the House, to come to a decision in the next two years. We are delegating a study, but it is up to parliamentarians to determine the parameters of the question.
We need to keep working on advance requests. That is what we have always said, and we are ready to do that work. We have not had a chance to do it at this stage, and we are going to go ahead with the mental illness issue and the minors issue at the next stage.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-03-11 15:31 [p.4923]
Madam Speaker, I listened first-hand to so many hours of debate from members of the Conservative Party in particular and have drawn the conclusion that if it were up to a number of its members, this legislation would never see the light of day, that they would continue to talk it out indefinitely. I think the Bloc has recognized that, and it is one of the reasons it was so important to bring in time allocation to meet that deadline.
Could the minister provide his thoughts as to why it was so important for us to continue to move this legislation forward?
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and his collaboration.
We have given the House ample time to debate this bill and the Senate amendments, which members of the Conservative Party have refused to do on three occasions when we offered to extend debate until midnight.
There are 139 members in this place who have spoken on this bill for close to 45 hours. We have a deadline. The deadline carries with it serious consequences. It is clear we will not get another extension from the Superior Court and that we have to move forward on this piece of legislation, which I again assure members of this House has the large consensus of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
View Colin Carrie Profile
CPC (ON)
View Colin Carrie Profile
2021-03-11 15:33 [p.4923]
Madam Speaker, it is a sad day that I have to stand up and contradict the minister. I have in my hand a letter from Vulnerable Persons Standard, which represents 129 organizations. These are organizations, not individuals.
The letter states:
As it stands, Bill C-7 is dangerous and discriminatory. Three United Nations experts have warned that Bill C-7 will violate international human rights conventions to which Canada is a signatory. Canadian legal experts warn that Bill C-7 will violate the Charter rights of persons with disabilities. People with disabilities, including in particular those who are marginalized, Black, Indigenous, racialized and poor, have warned that Bill C-7 will undermine their dignity and put their very lives at risk.
The minister is using closure. He is saying that there is consensus. That is simply not true. Will the minister please understand that this is a final deadline for many people to choose this. Could he please reconsider?
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, again, these are the kinds of arguments that we have been hearing in this House with respect to Bill C-7 generally, and the member's party has fixated on them. The fact of the matter is that we consulted widely with the leadership of disability groups.
Nobody is forced to get MAID. We, as a government, have invested in a dignified life, and we are going to continue to invest in resources for the disabled and for mental health.
We have disagreed with the opinions offered with respect to the bill's constitutionality. I believe it is constitutional and that it is in fundamental agreement with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also, I believe that there are fundamental errors in the report from the United Nations in the way it has characterized the legislation. Nobody is forcing people with disabilities to get MAID.
Results: 106 - 120 of 195 | Page: 8 of 13

|<
<
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data