Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 121 - 135 of 195
View Tracy Gray Profile
CPC (BC)
View Tracy Gray Profile
2021-03-11 15:35 [p.4923]
Madam Speaker, the minister is debating the reasons he is supporting the bill, yet what we are talking about right now is whether parliamentarians have had the time to speak fully on it.
The allotted time that the minister is mentioning includes debate previous to the Senate amendments. We have not fully debated the Senate amendments and allowed members who wish to do so to represent their communities. My phones and email have been flooded over the last few days. This is likely one of the most important bills that this Parliament will be dealing with, so I implore the minister to allow us the time to properly debate it.
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I would remind the member that it was her party that on three occasions this past week refused the opportunity to debate the Senate amendments to this bill by refusing to extend hours and by refusing to leave their dilatory tactics aside on other pieces of legislation.
If the member has to explain to her constituents why she perhaps feels she did not have a chance, she will have to explain that her party leader failed to exercise the leadership necessary in order to use the very valuable time that we as parliamentarians have available to discuss this bill properly.
That said, I think there is a large consensus here, which we have seen across Canada and on committee, and we will continue to move forward in this next step.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-03-11 15:37 [p.4923]
Madam Speaker, I have some concerns. This is a very important bill, as many other MPs have stated. This is a matter of life and death and very difficult decisions. I have some difficulty with the Senate amendments, and I would appreciate more time to discuss them. I wonder if the minister feels comfortable having an unelected body making amendments to such an important piece of legislation.
We have discussed the bill. We have had expert testimony from witnesses who have come before committee. Now we have these changes, and I think there is a lack of time to consider them carefully. I am wondering if the minister is comfortable with an unelected body making these changes in such a—
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I am indeed comfortable. For perhaps the first time since the beginning of Confederation, we have a Senate that is doing its job in a very robust, thoughtful and meaningful way. The Senate as well heard expert witnesses, studied the bill and did a prestudy of the bill. The Senate also discussed this bill in a relatively non-partisan way, and that even included Conservative members of the Senate, which, frankly, was heartwarming.
We thoughtfully reacted to the amendments proposed by the Senate and we believe we are moving forward with a reasonable package of amendments that have the large consensus of Canadians. We think this is the best step forward. The things that are left are things we can discuss as parliamentarians in the appropriate fashion over the next two years.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2021-03-11 15:39 [p.4924]
Madam Speaker, some members seem to be forgetting that, in addition to the sensitive issues that will be sent to an expert panel and a committee in the next 30 days for review, Bill C-7 contains a number of other improvements.
The bill enables terminally ill patients to give final consent right away without waiting 10 days. It also makes it possible to respond to the situation of people like Ms. Carter, Ms. Parker, Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon, who received medical assistance in dying. Patients who are terminally ill are suffering, and they are waiting for us to take action. Bill C-7 already makes that change. The court said that, if we did not give these people the opportunity to be heard, then we were violating their right to life. Bill C-7 resolves that issue.
Does the minister believe that the panel will be set up in the next 30 days? Will the panel continue to work on the issue regardless of whether an election is called? Members of the panel in question will be able to work with other stakeholders. At least that will enable us to make progress on this issue. In a year—
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Montcalm.
I completely agree with his observations on Bill C-7 and the proposed benefits for Canadians across the country. During the consultations, there was a consensus in that regard to truly lessen people's suffering.
I have no doubt that the expert panel will do its job. It will be set up within 30 days, as called for in the motion. I am sure that the work will be done over the next year as planned.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
View Rob Moore Profile
2021-03-11 15:41 [p.4924]
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, we heard the minister use the word “consensus” over and over again in the last little while. The fact is that when he appeared before the justice committee on Bill C-7, he said there was no consensus to include mental illness. When he went to the Senate and spoke there, he said there was no consensus in the medical community or in Canada on the issue of mental illness.
He is now showing complete contempt for Parliament by having no debate and no study at committee and complete contempt for those in the mental illness community and those in the suicide prevention community. They include such groups as Inclusion Canada, the Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship, the DisAbled Women's Network, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action.
Hundreds of organizations have signed a letter asking members of Parliament to please vote against the inclusion of mental illness in Bill C-7. Why is the minister putting the cart before the horse? We need to first study this legislation before moving forward.
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I congratulated the hon. member earlier today for his tone at committee. I wish I could do the same now.
I am not showing contempt for Parliament or the House of Commons. What I am doing is showing respect for a parliamentary committee process that will come to a reasonable conclusion and put in reasonable safeguards with respect to mental illness.
I have always admitted that this is a difficult issue and that I have heard, on both sides, experts saying that we either could or could not. After the intervention of the Senate and its report, its hearing of witnesses and its latent expertise, I am confident that we can move forward with confidence as parliamentarians maintaining the final ability to create the structures that we need to safeguard the process.
View Don Davies Profile
NDP (BC)
View Don Davies Profile
2021-03-11 15:43 [p.4924]
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that this is a very difficult subject for many parliamentarians and Canadians. It also invokes many deep feelings of conscience. Personally, I am in favour of medical assistance in dying and support Canadians' rights and constitutional rights to access that, but I also know a flawed bill when I see one and I also know when the majority of the Canadian public is very concerned about a bill.
I was somewhat shocked to hear the minister use the word “consensus”. I think he said that there is a consensus among the Canadian public about this bill. That is the furthest thing from the truth. I am hearing from disability rights groups across this country that have not been consulted and are deeply concerned about this bill.
He also says this bill is constitutional. He said that about the other iterations of this bill, after the Carter decision in which Liberal adventurism resulted in another unconstitutional law.
Will the minister heed the call of Canadians and give parliamentarians the right to do a proper study of this bill and make sure this flawed legislation is corrected?
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern. He will recall that in 2016 I thought that bill was unconstitutional and my fears were borne out by the Quebec Superior Court.
I want to assure the hon. member that the bill does have the large consensus of Canadians. I also want to assure him, as I have pointed out on a number of different occasions, that we did a great deal of consultation, including with people representing people living with disabilities and the leadership of that group. I did much of that personally, and the bill reflects that in its very structure.
View Bardish Chagger Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bardish Chagger Profile
2021-03-09 17:17 [p.4779]
Madam Speaker, I unfortunately need to give notice that with respect to the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2020-09-29 12:17 [p.237]
Mr. Speaker in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 1, I move:
That the debate be not further adjourned.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2020-09-29 12:22 [p.237]
Mr. Speaker, the cat has been let out of the bag. Are we surprised? Unfortunately, no because for months now it has been clear that the government does not like parliamentary debates.
The government is doing everything it can to stifle the work of MPs, who are here to hold it accountable. At a time when the Prime Minister was caught up in the WE scandal and parliamentarians were doing thorough and serious work in parliamentary committee, the Prime Minister decided to prorogue the House for six weeks, shutting down parliamentary work. That happened in the middle of summer.
Knowing full well that there were sunset clauses on financial commitments that are due to expire on September 30, the government was in a position to continue on if it wanted, while showing respect for democratic debate and parliamentarians. But no, the government decided to deliver an inaugural speech last week, barely a week before the deadline. It informed us that the plan to deal with these commitments would be debated over two days.
We were prepared to meet last Sunday to sit in committee of the whole. Four ministers would have had a great opportunity to testify and explain themselves. The government refused. Worse yet, it wants to put a four-hour limit on the debate on spending, which could reach $50 billion.
Why is the government limiting members' speaking time during extremely important debates?
View Carla Qualtrough Profile
Lib. (BC)
View Carla Qualtrough Profile
2020-09-29 12:22 [p.237]
Mr. Speaker, we told Canadians over a month ago of our plan to transition from the CERB to EI.
We talked about the changes made to the system that would allow more people to transition to EI. We said we were going to create three new benefits, namely, the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit. We also explained the details of those three benefits.
We worked very closely with public servants to make sure that the transition to EI would happen without any interruption to Canadians' benefits. It was very important to us that we continue our work behind the scenes, in co-operation with officials from the Department of National Revenue and Employment and Social Development Canada, who are working very hard for Canadians.
Quite frankly, there should be no big surprises here. We shared all the details of our plan over a month ago. I hope everyone will be happy with this. It is very important that these benefits get paid out so that workers—
Results: 121 - 135 of 195 | Page: 9 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