Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 150000
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2020-11-27 10:05 [p.2605]
Expand
There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-7.
The Chair has received letters sent by the hon. member for Fundy Royal and the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, arguing that Motions No. 2 and 3, though previously defeated in committee, should be selected at report stage as they are of such exceptional significance as to warrant further consideration, in accordance with the note to Standing Order 76.1(5).
Motion No. 2 seeks to maintain the provisions of paragraph 241.2(3)(g) of the Criminal Code to ensure that there are at least 10 clear days between the day on which the request was signed by or on behalf of the person and the day on which the medical assistance in dying is provided in cases where natural death has become reasonably foreseeable.
Motion No. 3 seeks to increase from 90 to 120 the minimum number of days required between the first assessment of a person who seeks medical assistance in dying and the day on which medical assistance in dying is provided, this in the circumstance where natural death is not reasonably foreseeable.
The Chair appreciates the argument put forward by the members as to why they consider these amendments dealing with procedural safeguards to be of such significance as to warrant further consideration at report stage. As with the original medical assistance in dying legislation four years ago, I recognize that this is an important issue with profound legal, moral and constitutional dimensions and that members have strongly held and varied points of view on these matters.
For these reasons, the Chair is prepared on this occasion to give members the benefit of the doubt and to select Motions 2 and 3, even though they were previously defeated in committee.
The remaining motion, Motion No. 1, was also examined and the Chair is satisfied that it meets the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.
Collapse
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
View Garnett Genuis Profile
2020-11-27 10:07 [p.2605]
Expand
Madam Chair, in light of the selection of the motions from my colleagues, I would like to withdraw my motion.
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2020-11-27 10:07 [p.2605]
Expand
Accordingly, Motion No. 1 will not be proceeded with.
Motions No. 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
I will now put these motions to the House.
Collapse
View Michael Cooper Profile
CPC (AB)
View Michael Cooper Profile
2020-11-27 10:08 [p.2605]
Expand
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-7, in Clause 1, be amended by deleting lines 25 to 31 on page 3.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-7, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 5 with the following:
“(i) ensure that there are at least 120 clear days between”.
Collapse
View Michael Cooper Profile
CPC (AB)
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak at report stage of Bill C-7 and, in particular, with respect to the two very modest amendments that we in the official opposition have put forward to the legislation, namely, to maintain a 10-day reflection period and to extend the reflection period of 90 days to 100 days where death is not reasonably foreseeable. Both of these amendments are supported by the evidence that was heard at the justice committee in what was otherwise a very rushed process. It need not have been this way and it should not have been this way.
One year ago, the Attorney General should have done what we on this side of the House called on the Attorney General to do, and that was to appeal the Truchon decision. That would have provided clarity in the law and it would have provided Parliament with time to appropriately respond legislatively if necessary, but the Attorney General did not do that. Instead, he rushed ahead with legislation purportedly aimed at responding to the Truchon decision, legislation, I might add, that was introduced with very little consultation.
The legislation went well beyond responding to the Truchon decision. The legislation fundamentally changes the medical assistance in dying regime that was passed in this Parliament a mere four and a half years ago and in so doing, the Attorney General and the government pre-empted a legislative review that was mandated by Bill C-14.
As a result, what we have is a rushed process to deal with a shoddy piece of legislation that recklessly puts vulnerable Canadians at risk. It is why virtually every disability rights organization in Canada opposes this bill. Indeed, 72 national disability rights organizations wrote to the Attorney General and pleaded with him to appeal the Truchon decision. Those pleas fell on deaf ears.
More than 1,000 physicians have penned a letter to the Attorney General opposing this bill. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities expressed concern about Canada's medical assistance in dying regime and questioned whether Canada in fact was living up to its international obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
I will quote Krista Carr, the executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, an organization that represents the rights of persons with disabilities, who said this of Bill C-7, “Bill C-7 is our worst nightmare.”
Catherine Frazee, professor at Ryerson University, former chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and a leading advocate for the rights of persons with disabilities, said “our equality is, right now, on the line” with respect to Bill C-7. She noted that the careful balance between individual autonomy and equality carved out in Bill C-14 had been up-ended in Bill C-7.
Dr. Heidi Janz of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities said:
Bill C-7 would enshrine a legal form of ableism into Canadian law by making medical assistance in dying a legally sanctioned substitute for the provision of community-based supports to assist people with disabilities to live.
You must ensure that MAID does not weaponize systemic ableism in Canada.
In the face of those concerns right across the spectrum from physicians and experts to persons with disabilities and their advocates, we, on this side, thought it appropriate we proceed in a cautious and deliberate way, having regard for the complexity of the issue, the lack of consultation and the very short time frame before us to consider the radical changes brought forward by the government in Bill C-7.
Therefore, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights we put forward reasonable amendments, including maintaining a 10-day reflection period, having regard for the fact that people do change their minds and having regard for the feedback that was provided.
We put forward an amendment to ensure there be two independent witnesses. When one executes a will, one needs two witnesses. One would expect that at the very least there would be a safeguard at least as robust as in the case of executing a will when we are talking about ending one's life, but no, the government removed that safeguard.
We put forward an amendment to extend the reflection period where death is not reasonably foreseeable from 90 days to 120 days, having regard for the fact it is often not even possible to access palliative care or other supports within 90 days. What good is a reflection period of 90 days if one does not have access to alternatives within such a time frame? That amendment was rejected by the government.
Consistent with what the Minister of Disability Inclusion said, and having regard for the horrific evidence we heard of Roger Foley, who was coerced into making a request for medical assistance in dying, which he recorded, this should always be patient-initiated so coercion is limited and to guard against that.
In closing, let me just say that what we have is a piece of legislation that does the opposite of what the Supreme Court called on Parliament to do in Carter, namely to provide for a carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards. This legislation eviscerates those safeguards, and on that basis, is unsupportable. It needs to be defeated out of hand.
Collapse
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Arif Virani Profile
2020-11-27 10:18 [p.2606]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I have a couple points of clarification. I thank the member opposite for his contributions.
The 90-day period that is entrenched in the legislation is an assessment period, not a reflection period. I believe the member misspoke. The notion that little consultation has been done on this bill is patently incorrect. We consulted 125 experts and 300,000 people submitted questionnaires.
The point has been made about the Truchon decision. What I would say, on this side of the House, is that the Truchon decision informed the response that is before Parliament right now. It talks about the autonomy of the individual.
What we know about the 10-day reflection period, part of the motion that is being debated right now, is that the 10-day reflection period for people who have made a considered decision only prolongs suffering. We know the evidence shows that people were depriving themselves of pain sedative medication just so they could hold on to provide that final consent.
Is prolonging that type of suffering what the member opposite wants to see in terms of the medical assistance in dying regime in Canada?
Collapse
View Michael Cooper Profile
CPC (AB)
View Michael Cooper Profile
2020-11-27 10:19 [p.2607]
Expand
Madam Speaker, with respect to the consultation period, the consultation that was undertaken by the government provided for an online survey that left out people who do not have access to the Internet, left out people with cognitive, mobility or other impairments, and left out people living in remote and northern communities. We heard evidence before the committee that the so-called consultations were an effort to arrive at a predetermined outcome. I would not stand in any way defending that shoddy process, which led to this shoddy piece of legislation.
With respect to the matter of the 10-day reflection period, I would note that Dr. Harvey Chochinov, who was chair of the expert panel on a legislative response to the Carter decision, noted that death wishes can be transient and, indeed, data before the Quebec court in Truchon indicated that 8% of persons who made a request for medical assistance in dying removed that request, underscoring the need for a reflection period.
Collapse
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Christine Normandin Profile
2020-11-27 10:21 [p.2607]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
He mentioned that he would have liked to see the government appeal Justice Baudouin's decision. Usually, when a decision is appealed, it is because an error of fact or law was made.
Can he tell me what errors of fact or law Justice Baudouin may have made in her decision?
Collapse
View Michael Cooper Profile
CPC (AB)
View Michael Cooper Profile
2020-11-27 10:21 [p.2607]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I would note that Madam Justice Baudouin, in rendering her decision and finding that the reasonably foreseeable criteria contravened section 7 and section 15 of the charter, based her analysis on only one objective of Bill C-14, namely to protect vulnerable persons from being induced in a moment of weakness to ending their lives.
The justice ignored other objectives of law, including the sanctity of life, dignity of the elderly and disabled, and suicide prevention. On that basis alone, the decision should have been appealed.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-11-27 10:22 [p.2607]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I will disagree that this legislation is shoddy. I think this piece of legislation is well crafted. There were some amendments that my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith would have liked to see pass in committee, which I supported, which would have done more to reassure the disability community. One of the amendments did go through.
It is similar to what my friend from the Bloc just said. It does not strike me that making the case that this matter should have been appealed deals with the immediate need that the first version of this bill did not meet the Carter decision requirements. I said it at that time in the House that we did not do what needed to be done to meet the Carter decision from the Supreme Court of Canada.
Does my colleague think it would have made any difference to appeal Truchon, only to have it reconfirmed when it got to the Supreme Court of Canada?
Collapse
View Michael Cooper Profile
CPC (AB)
View Michael Cooper Profile
2020-11-27 10:23 [p.2607]
Expand
Madam Speaker, let me just say that I believe, at the very least, it would have provided time for Parliament to respond legislatively, something that we have not had sufficient time to do, and it would have better provided clarity of the law.
Collapse
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Arif Virani Profile
2020-11-27 10:24 [p.2607]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussion on Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying.
I have the privilege of being a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The committee heard from quite a few eminent witnesses during its examination of the bill. Their testimony before the committee gave rise to a number of reasoned amendments that were the subject of a lively debate among committee members.
I would like to take this opportunity to give members of the House an overview of the committee's work on Bill C-7 because I believe it could help inform upcoming discussions on this important legislative measure.
Before I do that, I want to emphasize to members of this place the looming court-imposed deadline to pass this legislation by December 18. It is important that we move expeditiously on this piece of legislation to ensure we do not prolong the suffering of Canadians or create an uneven law in respect of medical assistance in dying across the country.
The most important change put forward by Bill C-7 is its repeal of the reasonable foreseeability of natural death criterion in response to the decision in Truchon. The committee heard from several disability organizations and individuals living with disabilities who shared powerful testimony about autonomy, what it means to make a truly informed and voluntary choice, and the inherent dangers they perceive in shifting Canada's MAID regime away from an end-of-life one toward one that, in their words, made disability a justification to end life.
I want to discuss some of the amendments that were not adopted. This is an important piece of legislation and a very challenging issue, and we faced some difficult questions at committee. The majority of the members at committee ultimately felt confident that the current eligibility criteria in the MAID provisions adequately protect Canadians. There is a requirement that for people to be eligible for medical assistance in dying, their suffering must either be due to illness, disease or disability, or an advanced state of decline in capability. Suffering that would be solely due to factors like a lack of supports or the experience of inequality would not make a person eligible for MAID.
Of course, people can experience intolerable suffering for different reasons, and that brings me to the eligibility criteria that will apply in all cases and how they protect people.
Individuals are eligible for medical assistance in dying only if they make a voluntary request that is not coerced and give informed consent. We are confident that these criteria, combined with the judgment of practitioners who assesses eligibility for medical assistance in dying, will address those concerns.
The committee also studied the two-track system proposed in Bill C-7, paying special attention to the fact that reasonably foreseeable natural death will no longer be one of the eligibility criteria, but the factor that determines which set of safeguards applies in a given case.
The committee examined the possibility of defining this criterion as meaning a person would have 12 months or less to live. The phrase “reasonably foreseeable natural death” requires a connection to death that is temporal but remains flexible. To some members and witnesses, that flexibility sacrifices certainty, which can make the job of practitioners more difficult. This concern is what prompted the suggestion that we define it as requiring a prognosis of 12 months.
The majority of the committee members chose not to adopt that amendment, as we believe practitioners are able to continue to make determinations on the basis of the flexible criterion they have been using to date. That evaluation is determined on a case-by-case basis. The reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion does not have an arbitrary 12-month outer limit, so this proposed amendment would have narrowed its meaning.
The committee also discussed possible amendments to maintain the 10-day reflection period for people whose death is reasonably foreseeable, which is what we are talking about today, to reduce that period to seven days and to maintain the safeguard requiring two independent witnesses.
In the end, those amendments to Bill C-7 were not adopted. I think that is the right decision because I feel that changes to the existing safeguards are in line with feedback we got from practitioners across the country who participated in the January 2020 consultations. A number of the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights reiterated that.
I do not think these changes will cause any harm or make the process any less safe for those whose death is reasonably foreseeable. We do believe that these changes will alleviate suffering.
The committee also discussed amendments that would have lengthened the assessment period when death is not reasonably foreseeable to 120 days, and transformed it into a reflection period. The majority of the committee members did not accept these amendments, as we feel they would have prolonged suffering for those whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable, without necessarily improving the safety of the regime.
The 90-day period is meant to be an assessment period, not a reflection period. I have already mentioned that in the course of today's debate. During that assessment period, practitioners evaluate eligibility, canvass other options for relieving a person's suffering and discuss these options with the person in question. It is not intended to impose a minimum waiting period after a person is found to be eligible.
We believe that Bill C-7 strikes the right balance between safety and patient autonomy, particularly given that we are amending the Criminal Code, which sets out the minimum requirements for a practitioner to rely on exemptions to otherwise applicable criminal offences. A practitioner could always spend more time assessing a patient, if they believe it to be necessary in the given case, again, underscoring the individualized nature of the assessment.
The committee did adopt an amendment, which the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands just mentioned, which I think will improve the second track of safeguards for those whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable.
As introduced, Bill C-7 required that one of the two assessors have expertise in the condition that is causing the person's suffering. The committee heard that this requirement could pose significant barriers to access since experts are rarely made assessors. While they may be willing to provide their expert advice in a case, they may not be willing to undertake the entirety of an assessment for a patient that they do not know and may feel their time is better spent delivering that expert care to others.
The amendment, moved by the NDP member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, would allow the assessors to consult an expert when neither of them has the relevant experience. We appreciate this evidence-based adjustment to the bill.
The committee also accepted an amendment proposed by the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Here is the reference made by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. This amendment would require the Minister of Health, in carrying out her duties related to subsection 241.31(3), to consult, when appropriate, with the minister responsible for the status of persons with disabilities. These duties would include developing regulations in support of monitoring medical assistance in dying and establishing guidelines for the death certificate reporting of medically assisted deaths.
While I am confident that the current Minister of Health has been and would continue to do this in any event, I am very happy to see this enshrined in the legislative package to ensure that the voices of the disability community are heard in this process.
I want to thank my colleagues, including the members opposite, who participated in the justice committee for their thoughtful interventions and their thoughtful deliberations. I want to emphasize to my colleagues the importance of moving quickly on this legislation because of the court-imposed deadline by the Truchon decision.
I want to raise one point that has come up in the context of what was raised by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. This was the idea that the proposed package actually perpetuates discrimination vis-à-vis persons with disabilities. The issue of disability discrimination was canvassed directly in the Truchon decision, and in that case the court said, and I will quote from paragraph 681:
...the challenged provision perhaps perpetuates another probably more pernicious stereotype: the inability to consent fully to medical assistance in dying. Yet the evidence amply establishes that Mr. Truchon is fully capable of exercising fundamental choices concerning his life and his death. As a consequence, he is deprived of the exercise of these choices essential to his dignity as a human being due to his personal characteristics that the challenged provision does not consider. He can neither commit suicide by a method of his own choosing nor legally request this assistance.
[682] Individuals in the same position as Mr. Truchon must be allowed to exercise full autonomy not only at the end of life, but also at any moment during their life, even if this means death, where the other eligibility conditions for medical assistance in dying are met.
[683] The Court thus concludes that s. 241.2(2)(d) of the Criminal Code clearly infringes the applicants’ right to equality.
Equality is critical here. The point I am making is that discrimination against persons with disabilities cannot be tolerated and should never be countenanced. The point that was made in the court and the point we are making on this side of the House is that in order to entrench equality, to fulfill the promise of the charter in section 15, we must empower persons with disabilities to make the exact same choices, give consent and exercise the same autonomy over their bodies as persons who are not disabled. That is what the court drove at in the Truchon decision. That is what this bill reflects.
Collapse
View David Sweet Profile
CPC (ON)
View David Sweet Profile
2020-11-27 10:33 [p.2609]
Expand
Madam Speaker, in a debate this important, I think it is important that my hon. colleague, whom I have respect for and have worked with on human rights, would not stoop so low as to impugn the motives of my colleague in regard to the 10-day period for reflection. The notion that he would want someone to suffer more is reprehensible.
It is a different situation, but my daughter took her own life and left a note. She took her own life in the context of having, at one point of her life, an unbelievable amount of stress so that she made a bad decision one evening, alone. It is not temporary. It is absolute.
The point that we are arguing is that, once this decision is made, it cannot be reversed. The notion that we are trying to make people suffer, as I said, is reprehensible. The idea is to make sure that someone who is in a bad situation, who might the next day find more light and hope, would not make a bad decision and completely eliminate the breath of their own life.
Collapse
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Arif Virani Profile
2020-11-27 10:35 [p.2609]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his contributions today and in this Parliament. I offer my sympathies to him for the loss within his family.
The point I was making earlier in this debate was simply to reflect what we heard during the consultations. The 10-day reflection period is entrenched in the old Bill C-14. When Canada was embarking on this for the first time in its history, it was deemed necessary to do the work of ensuring that consideration and time for reflection was available.
What we have found four years after the fact, after extensive consultations, is that the goal of that 10-day reflection period was not actually doing what it was intended to do. As an unintended consequence it was actually prolonging suffering.
The point underscoring this difference in views on either side of the House is that when people get to the stage of asking for medical assistance in dying, they have already reflected upon it. They have already considered it and have gotten to that point after very appropriate and measured determination.
Collapse
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
2020-11-27 10:36 [p.2609]
Expand
Madam Speaker, in an article yesterday, Joan Bryden of the Canadian Press reported that the Minister of Disability Inclusion believes that health practitioners should not be allowed to discuss the issue of medical assistance in dying until a patient asks about it, and that she is open to amending the legislation to make that clear. Some health care practitioners, however, disagree with that position, arguing that they have a duty to talk about all options available to patients. Have they ever thought about it? What are their thoughts on life and death? These are very simple questions.
The Canadian Nurses Association has urged the government to specifically clarify in the law that health practitioners can initiate discussions on medical assistance in dying with their patients. I would add that Jocelyn Downie, a professor of law and medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, said that informing patients about all options available to them is a fundamental principle of Canadian consent law. In her view, an amendment that prohibits raising the issue would be a cruel amendment and would fly in the face of well-established statutory and professional legal standards. She went on to say that it would also likely chill discussions of medical assistance in dying, as clinicians may fear liability.
I would like to know what the government really thinks about this matter.
Collapse
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Arif Virani Profile
2020-11-27 10:37 [p.2609]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I want to point out two or three things.
First, there are quite a few protections for all doctors and nurses in the current legislation.
Second, they are quite free to discuss all options and the medical assistance in dying process before proceeding with that process. They are even encouraged to do so. That is exactly what is stated in the provisions concerning the second track, that is, in a situation where death is not reasonably foreseeable.
Third, in committee we discussed the position taken by the Canadian Nurses Association. It was noted that there is already a fairly wide range of protections for practitioners, whether nurses or doctors, against litigation or a complaint about their action, because they continue to have conscience rights, as well as the right to have an open discussion with their patients.
Collapse
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
BQ (QC)
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
2020-11-27 10:38 [p.2609]
Expand
Madam Speaker, as the saying goes, never two without three.
I rise today in the House of Commons to speak once again to the issue of medical assistance in dying as it pertains to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code. However, this time we have a deadline set by Justice Baudouin, namely December 18, 2020, so there is a sense of urgency now.
I am likely repeating myself today, but many people here have had unique experiences involving the end of a loved one's life. I am thinking in particular of one of my old friends, Stéphane, who died in palliative care at a very young age, in his twenties. He was supported by the excellent Maison Au Diapason. He was one of the youngest patients to die there and one of the first as well. This type of assistance is essential and useful.
As the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women and seniors, I naturally took a special interest in this bill. In this speech, I will be reminding everyone of all the work that my party has done on this important issue, while emphasizing the great sensitivity of Quebeckers when it comes to medical assistance in dying. I will conclude with the position that certain seniors' and women's groups have taken on this issue and the recommendations they made that are extremely useful, but that are already several years old. They too are starting to get impatient.
First, let's talk about the reason for this debate. In September 2019, the Superior Court of Quebec ruled in favour of Nicole Gladu and Jean Truchon, both of whom had incurable degenerative diseases. The court stated that one of the eligibility criteria for medical assistance in dying was too restrictive, both in the federal legislation covering MAID and in Quebec's Act respecting end-of-life care.
These two brave individuals, with whom I have mutual acquaintances, simply asked to be able to die with dignity, without needlessly prolonging their suffering. Mr. Truchon, who had cerebral palsy, had lost the use of all four limbs and had difficulty speaking. Ms. Gladu, who has post-polio syndrome, is not able to control her pain with medication and cannot stay in the same position for too long because of the constant pain. She has said that she loves life too much to settle for mere existence. That is what she said.
What we are talking about here is the criterion of a reasonably foreseeable death. Justice Christine Baudouin said it well in her ruling:
The Court has no hesitation in concluding that the reasonably foreseeable natural death requirement infringes Mr. Truchon and Ms. Gladu's rights to liberty and security, protected by section 7 of the Charter.
That is the crux of our debate. These advocates had been denied medical assistance in dying because their death was not reasonably foreseeable, even though they had legitimately demonstrated their desire to stop suffering. Jean Truchon had chosen to die in June 2020, but he moved up the date because of the pandemic. Nicole Gladu is still living, and I commend her for her courage and determination.
The Bloc Québécois's position on this ethical issue is very clear, and I want to thank the member for Montcalm for his excellent work. I will not be as technical as him, but he showed us that we are capable of working together, and I thank him for all of the improvements that he made to this bill.
As many members have already pointed out, legislators did not do their job properly with the former Bill C-14. As a result, issues of a social and political nature are being brought before the courts. We need to make sure that people who have irreversible illnesses are not forced to go to court to access MAID. Do we really want to inflict more suffering on people who are already suffering greatly by forcing them to go to court for the right to make the very personal decision about their end of life? This will inevitably happen if we cannot figure out a way to cover cognitive degenerative diseases.
Obviously, we agree that we need to proceed with caution before including mental health issues, but that is not the issue today, since MAID in mental health-related cases was excluded from the bill. Once again, this matter was brought before the Standing Committee on Health via a motion moved by my colleague from Montcalm.
Second, I want to talk about how important Quebec is in this context. Quebec enacted the country's first legislation on this subject. Wanda Morris, a member of a B.C. group that advocates for the right to die with dignity, talked about how a committee that got the unanimous support of all parties in the National Assembly was a model for the rest of Canada. She said it was reassuring to see how it was working in Quebec and that people were happy to have the option to die with dignity.
However, it is important to know that this bill was first introduced by Véronique Hivon and that it was the fruit of many years of research and consultations with individuals, doctors, ethicists and patients. Whereas 79% of Quebeckers are in favour of medical assistance in dying, only 68% of people in the rest of Canada are. Those numbers are worth knowing and mentioning.
In 2015, when all parties in Quebec's National Assembly unanimously welcomed the Supreme Court's ruling on medical assistance in dying, Véronique Hivon had this to say:
Today is truly a great day for people who are ill, for people who are at the end of their lives...for Quebec and for all Quebeckers who participated in this democratic debate...that the National Assembly had the courage to initiate in 2009.
I believe that, collectively, Quebec has really paved the way, and and we have done so in the best possible way, in a non-partisan, totally democratic way.
For the third part of my speech, I would like to tell you about a meeting I had with the Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale in my role as the Bloc Québécois critic for status of women, gender equality and seniors. At this meeting, these brave women shared with me their concerns about this issue.
I will quote the AFEAS 2018-19 issue guide:
Is medical assistance in dying a quality of life issue? For those individuals who can no longer endure life and who meet the many criteria for obtaining this assistance, the opportunity to express their last wishes is undoubtedly welcome. This glimmer of autonomy can be reassuring and make it possible to face death more calmly. ... As the process for obtaining medical assistance in dying is very restrictive, those who use it probably do so for a very simple reason: they have lost all hope. ... This process cannot be accessed by individuals who are not at the end of life. ... People with degenerative diseases, who are suffering physically and mentally, do not have access to medical assistance in dying.
A brief submitted in 2010, or 10 years ago, to the Select Committee on Dying with Dignity, explained that the last moments are not always difficult because there are standards to guide medical practice and medical advances help relieve pain. However, despite everyone's goodwill, some people do have unfortunate experiences. Consequently, to prevent prolonged agony from depriving some people of their dignity and control over their lives, there are those calling for as a last resort the right to die with dignity, or the right to die at a time of one's choosing with assistance in this last stage.
Another brief pointed out that there have been four separate attempts to introduce similar legislation, specifically in 1994, 2005, 2008 and 2009, but these bills have never gone further than first reading. This needs to pass.
I will now read the conclusion from the AFEAS brief, as it is really powerful:
Over the next few months, AFEAS members will continue to reflect on the framework in which individuals losing their autonomy or suffering from an incurable, disabling illness, or experiencing acute physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief will be able to clearly and unequivocally express their desire to stop fighting to live and seek assistance to die.
Establishing the framework in which these decisions are made will be critical to ensuring that abuse cannot occur. The guidelines must be clear and precise so that all individuals can freely express their own choices, without any constraints and with full knowledge of all available options. It will be essential that all end-of-life services, including palliative care, be available and effective throughout Quebec so that patients have a real choice and do not feel forced to accept a “default” option because of a lack of adequate services or undue pressure from others.
I will also close now, in the hope that all of these comments and the lived experiences of the people in Quebec who made the request and wanted to die with dignity will afford Bill C-7 the same unanimous support from all members of the House of Commons so that we may all freely choose when we die. Let's take action.
Collapse
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Arif Virani Profile
2020-11-27 10:47 [p.2611]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the comments and speech from the hon. member on the other side.
On a number of occasions, here in the House today and in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, it has been suggested that we are wrong not to appeal the Truchon decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
On this side of the House, we believe that Justice Baudouin's ruling in Truchon and Gladu was well documented, well expressed and well supported by the evidence.
What does the member think about the possibility of appealing this decision to the Supreme Court? Would that risk prolonging the pain and suffering of Canadians?
Collapse
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
BQ (QC)
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
2020-11-27 10:48 [p.2611]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.
I remind members that we have a deadline: December 18, 2020. This is our deadline to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, after the original deadline was extended because of the COVID-19 crisis.
However, I think we are ready to make a decision. Everyone in the House can move this forward and pass the bill.
Collapse
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2020-11-27 10:48 [p.2611]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Shefford for her excellent speech.
She mentioned my colleague from Joliette, Véronique Hivon, who did outstanding work in the Quebec National Assembly. She did politics differently. She talked to every party and said that they all needed to put partisanship aside, because this matter was too important.
Does my colleague from Shefford believe that the same kind of work has been done here, in the House?
Collapse
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
BQ (QC)
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
2020-11-27 10:49 [p.2611]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Joliette for the question.
Unfortunately, that was not the case. I recently had some conversations with Mrs. Hivon and she looks forward to seeing this file come to a close. She brought this legislation to Quebec City with a lot of heart and passion.
I do not want to pass judgment, but it is too bad that here in the House certain religious beliefs have coloured the debate on medical assistance in dying and delayed passage of the bill. There was not the same unanimity in the House of Commons as there was in the National Assembly.
It is a shame because this file should go beyond our political persuasions. This issue should be rooted in science and based on the advice of ethicists, doctors and experts. I think everyone has the right to choose freely how they will die, and that goes beyond beliefs. People who do not want to use medical assistance in dying can make that choice, and the bill allows for that.
Collapse
View Randall Garrison Profile
NDP (BC)
View Randall Garrison Profile
2020-11-27 10:50 [p.2611]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Shefford for bringing the individual situations of the plaintiffs in the Truchon case before the House again and for recognizing their bravery.
My question has to do with the unfortunate line I have heard in public, and even from some members of the official opposition, that somehow we have no obligation in Parliament to meet the deadline imposed by the decision of Madam Justice Beaudoin in the Truchon case. Not meeting that deadline would have serious consequences in Quebec.
I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on the question of the importance of meeting the court deadline.
Collapse
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
BQ (QC)
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
2020-11-27 10:50 [p.2612]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
Indeed, the Superior Court of Quebec ordered federal and provincial legislation to be changed. That was supposed to be done before March 11, 2020. An extended deadline was granted by Justice Christine Baudouin and the deadline was pushed to December 18. I think there will be problems if we do not meet the December 18 deadline. That is why we must all move forward together and meet this deadline to avoid the problems that will come up if we do not comply with Justice Baudouin's order.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-11-27 10:51 [p.2612]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for her very interesting and very important speech.
The details she shared about Jean Truchon's case enabled us to understand the situation and the plans that have to be made in such a case. As my friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke said, we really have to understand the importance and wisdom of Justice Baudouin's decision.
I just want to emphasize how important this bill is for reducing suffering across Canada. This bill will finally—
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2020-11-27 10:52 [p.2612]
Expand
Unfortunately, I have to ask the member for Shefford to keep her comment very brief.
Collapse
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
BQ (QC)
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
2020-11-27 10:52 [p.2612]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comment.
She stressed the importance of this bill. Its primary purpose is to reduce everyone's suffering. Death is unavoidable. It is part of life. We are born and we know that, ultimately, we will die. We do not choose the moment of our birth, but—
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2020-11-27 10:52 [p.2612]
Expand
Resuming debate.
The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.
Collapse
View Randall Garrison Profile
NDP (BC)
View Randall Garrison Profile
2020-11-27 10:52 [p.2612]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I am very surprised we are debating these two motions from the official opposition again in the House when these had been dealt with in committee. Without reflecting on the past decision of the Speaker, I have some concerns with respect to future precedence in declaring something particularly important, that it not open the Chair to the accusation of having a position on a particular question.
With that aside, I will turn to what is now before us.
Everyone in the House has sincerely held beliefs on this very important and difficult question of how we deal with end of life in Canada. It is important we all be careful not to impute motives to our fellow members in this debate however difficult that may be for us to do.
Turning to the content of these two motions, and again, I am surprised we are having a redo in the House.
Motion No. 2 talks about what is referred to officially as reflection period. What happens in actual fact is that those who request medical assistance in dying, where death is reasonably foreseeable, go through a very long and involved process with their spiritual advisers, their family and with the clinicians who are advising them on the end-of-life issues.
It is important to note that people are not choosing to end their lives when asking for medical assistance in dying. What they are doing is attempting to establish how they will deal with their inevitable death and to maintain their personal autonomy and control over the way that plays out. The New Democrats, in debate on medical assistance in dying, have always stated our priority is to keep in mind that what medical assistance in dying is designed to do is to reduce unnecessary suffering and not unduly prolong that suffering.
It is not just suffering for the patients, although that is one of the qualifications for being able to apply for medical assistance in dying, patients must be suffering intolerably, but also to reduce suffering for the families that are forced to bear witness to the suffering their loved ones are undergoing as they approach end of life.
What we have heard very clearly from those who are assessing and providing medical assistance is dying is that this 10-day period is not really a reflection period. It is a period that is imposed as a waiting period.
When I hear hon. members talk about people changing their minds, we need to look very carefully at what the evidence actually says. Yes, people who apply for medical assistance in dying do sometimes withdraw that request, but they almost always do so during the assessment period. Very few people do so during the waiting period. Of course, at any time they can still withdraw that consent, right up to the last moment.
Medical assessors and providers, as well as families, have said that the real impact of having such a 10-day period is simply to prolong suffering for everyone. When we look at the statistics on when those who applied for medical assistance in dying actually set a date for that assistance to be provided, we find that 50% or more of those are between the 11th and 14th day. In other words, they are being forced to wait out this period before they can assess medical assistance in dying.
It is very important we recognize that we may, and I believe we have, inadvertently prolong suffering through this so-called reflection period. Again, I remind members that we have heard again and again that this is not a snap decision people make; it is a decision that has been well considered with their families, spiritual advisers and with the physicians involved.
Motion No. 3 deals with those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It is important we remind ourselves that the condition of death being reasonably foreseeable was, in effect, taken out of medical assistance in dying legislation by the Truchon decision, not by Bill C-7.
The importance of Bill C-7 is that it would establish some special procedures that would be appropriate to those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. In that case, it set a minimum period for assessment, which was set at 90 days. Again, people are calling this a reflection period. It is not a reflection period. Nor is it a deadline by which medical assistance in dying must be carried out.
The bill would set a minimum time for assessment. If the clinicians and the patient involved believe the assessment should take longer, it can take longer than the 90 days. Therefore, the 90 days is in fact an arbitrary number. I do not think it is reflected in any medical science. Extending that to 120 has that risk, once again, of inadvertently and unintentionally prolonging suffering for those who are at the end of life.
I will not go on too long today, but it is important that we not confuse suicide with medical assistance in dying. Suicide is very serious, and I send my condolences to all those who have lost loved ones.
Medical assistance in dying is not about taking one's own life. It is about the situation when one's life is ending and how one maintains a dignified end to that life and is able to do so without prolonging suffering. We have heard again and again from families and practitioners that no one involved in medical assistance in dying wants anyone to die. They are simply dealing with the realities that medical conditions have presented to them. With that, I will end my comments.
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2020-11-27 10:59 [p.2613]
Expand
The hon. member will have five minutes of questions after Oral Questions.
Collapse
View Majid Jowhari Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Majid Jowhari Profile
2020-11-27 10:59 [p.2613]
Expand
Madam Speaker, on Saturday, November 21, our office collaborated with the Richmond Hill Lawn Bowling Club to hold a holiday food drive in support of the Richmond Hill Community Food Bank. A team of 20 volunteers led by Ted Pickles braved the cold from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. to help collect 2,500 pounds of food and $2,500 of donations for the food bank.
I want to thank them, the mayor and the councillors for ward 4 and ward 5, who lent their support, as well as Bristol Car and Truck Rentals for providing us with a truck for the donation. The Richmond Hill Community Food Bank has helped over 1,300 clients a month this year and continues to support residents during these difficult times. I encourage all Canadians to donate to their local food bank if they can.
I thank the team of volunteers, Ted, the Richmond Hill Lawn Bowling Club and our community partners for their work in supporting our food bank. I am so proud to represent such an amazing community. I thank Richmond Hill.
Collapse
View Doug Shipley Profile
CPC (ON)
View Doug Shipley Profile
2020-11-27 11:00 [p.2613]
Expand
Madam Speaker, today I rise in the House to recognize the tragic shooting that ultimately took the life of 12-year-old Dante Andreatta. Dante and his mother were walking home after grocery shopping when two gang members started shooting at rivals. Horrifically, Dante was struck in the neck in the crossfire.
The two men charged with the murder have a long history of violent criminal activity. They are not sport shooters, duck hunters or legal firearms owners; they are criminals.
This brazen shooting, which took place in broad daylight, has impacted me greatly. As a father, I cannot imagine the pain Dante's mother, family and the community are going through.
After consultation with a boots-on-the-ground organization, the One by One Movement, we have learned there is a gang war raging in Toronto. However, the Prime Minister is waging his own war on legal firearms owners.
Community groups are begging for resources and to be heard. When will the Prime Minister step up for this family and this community?
Collapse
View Marwan Tabbara Profile
Ind. (ON)
View Marwan Tabbara Profile
2020-11-27 11:01 [p.2613]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the United Nations General Assembly will meet on December 2 to vote in the matter of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination. Israel and Palestine have been embroiled in a conflict for over 72 years and have faced numerous failed peace negotiations.
There are many major factors standing in the way of a two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state. Grievances need to be acknowledged and peace must be made the main focus. Israel's allies, like Canada, need to make it increasingly clear that continued support for Israel is contingent on its willingness to enter serious negotiations.
The House should be supporting the government and an overwhelming majority of other countries in intensifying and broadening its support for pro-Palestinian resolutions.
Collapse
View René Arseneault Profile
Lib. (NB)
View René Arseneault Profile
2020-11-27 11:02 [p.2613]
Expand
Madam Speaker, on November 21, the Edmundston and Upper Madawaska chambers of commerce held the 2020 SME Gala to mark small business week.
It was a successful evening that made it possible to honour, even in times of pandemic, entrepreneurs and companies.
Here are the winners in each category. Northwest Plumbing and Heating Inc. won the young entrepreneur award. Bobby's Car Wash and Auto Sales Inc. won the highest merit award. Frontière FM radio won the innovation award. Jack & Jill Pools won the evolution award. Hermance Laplante Alliance Realty won the civic engagement award. EMS Group won the Samuel E. Burpee award. Dr Aucoin Dentisterie intégrale won the entrepreneurial spirit award. Janel Ouellet Design won the Bâtisseur Louis-Philippe Nadeau award. Waska won the business of the year award.
I want to congratulate all these dynamic northwestern New Brunswick businesses for their outstanding work, even in a pandemic.
Collapse
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jenny Kwan Profile
2020-11-27 11:03 [p.2614]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Health said she has the highest regard for Dr. Patricia Daly, Dr. Bonnie Henry and Mayor Kennedy Stewart. Why, then, has the minister refused to follow their sound advice and decriminalize simple drug possession to help save lives?
In B.C. alone, 1,386 people have died from overdose. Across the country, over 16,000 people have been taken by the war on drugs. The Downtown Eastside is under siege, with record overdose deaths, and it now has the highest COVID-19 infection rates in the city. Our communities are also grappling with the largest homeless encampments in the country.
We need urgent help from the federal government. Vancouver's city council is calling on the government to decriminalize, and the province wants the federal government to cost-share, fifty-fifty, in its aggressive pandemic housing plan to house the homeless. Housing advocates want the port to stand down and not pursue civil proceedings against those who acted in solidarity with the people—
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2020-11-27 11:04 [p.2614]
Expand
The hon. member for Labrador.
Collapse
View Yvonne Jones Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Yvonne Jones Profile
2020-11-27 11:05 [p.2614]
Expand
Madam Speaker, northerners have shown incredible strength and resilience in protecting their communities and loved ones from COVID-19. As cases continue to rise in Nunavut, we have heard the call from the Government of Nunavut, Inuit partners and community organizations for additional federal support—
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2020-11-27 11:05 [p.2614]
Expand
The hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine on a point of order.
Collapse
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleague to use her headset, since we are not getting the French interpretation. We do not understand what she is saying.
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2020-11-27 11:06 [p.2614]
Expand
Could the hon. member for Labrador please put on her headset so the interpreters can interpret?
Collapse
View Yvonne Jones Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Yvonne Jones Profile
2020-11-27 11:06 [p.2614]
Expand
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, my headset is not available. With consent, I will continue.
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2020-11-27 11:06 [p.2614]
Expand
Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to continue?
An hon. member: No.
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2020-11-27 11:06 [p.2614]
Expand
I am sorry but there is no consent. We have to have interpretation for oral statements.
The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.
Collapse
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2020-11-27 11:07 [p.2614]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic is serious. Compared with the Hong Kong flu in the late 1960s, COVID-19 has resulted in almost three times as many deaths.
This pandemic affects more than just our physical well-being. April to June saw 302 opioid-related deaths in Alberta, a 43% increase from the height of the opioid crisis in 2018.
A university study suggests the socio-economic upheaval surrounding the virus could result in over 2,100 more suicide deaths, above the Canadian average, by the end of 2021. The rising toll of suicides, marital breakdowns and spousal abuse must give pause to every decision-maker when looking at new restrictions and considering lockdowns. All factors need to be considered when choosing strategies to end this pandemic, including social wellness, mental health and economic survival.
My constituents are worried that the infringement on our constitutionally guaranteed rights, both big and small, by governments is not being offset by real, substantive gains that end the pandemic. We cannot continue this way forever.
Collapse
View Soraya Martinez Ferrada Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Soraya Martinez Ferrada Profile
2020-11-27 11:08 [p.2615]
Expand
Madam Speaker, Hochelaga is at the heart of Montreal East.
This vast part of Montreal has a long industrial past. Several million square feet of land are contaminated, and there is a desperate need for transportation infrastructure. However, we in the east end strongly believe that this area is a hub for future economic, social and environmental development, the kind of development that acknowledges the importance of fighting climate change.
To successfully revitalize Montreal East, we must take environmental action, such as decontaminating the soil, developing public transit, encouraging the creation of businesses that support the circular economy, and more.
Last week, our government introduced the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. This bill will ensure that the government will be accountable to Canadians with respect to environmental targets. It will take many years to realize the full potential of Montreal East, but I am committed to working with all stakeholders to achieve this.
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-11-27 11:09 [p.2615]
Expand
Madam Speaker, during Joseph Stalin's Russian regime in 1932-33, he forced starvation upon the Ukrainian people. That genocide has become recognized as the Holodomor.
When we look at the 1.3 million Canadians of Ukrainian heritage, we get an appreciation of why this is such an important event to remember. Whether people are of Ukrainian heritage or not, the brutal policy of starving people as a form of genocide is horrific. Children having to go into fields looking for food were being shot. A population was forced to eat roots and rats. All kinds of things of a horrific nature took place.
In Canada, we recognize the fourth Saturday of November as a time to reflect on that horrific incident and remember it.
Collapse
View Joël Godin Profile
CPC (QC)
View Joël Godin Profile
2020-11-27 11:10 [p.2615]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I want to ask this government's Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to pay just a little attention to the people who work every day to feed Canadians.
Farmers are the lifeblood of many of our rural communities. They have given a lot and we need to respect them. The Liberal government has made some fine promises to buy their silence and get them to agree to the concessions made during the most recent trade agreement negotiations. Now, it is time to provide the timeline for the promised payments to all eligible farmers and agriculture processors. That is the least this government can do to recognize the importance of the men and women who work in this critical sector of our economy.
Supply management must be protected, and our leader has committed to never use supply management as a bargaining chip in future negotiations. Enough is enough. Why put these business owners through that kind of stress? When someone is just trying to give the impression that they respect a group, they act like the Minister of Agriculture is acting. They are evasive and change the rules of the game.
I am asking the Minister of Agriculture to stop playing cat and mouse and to show respect for our farmers by keeping her word.
Collapse
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2020-11-27 11:11 [p.2615]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the first snowfall heralded an abrupt start to winter and people are beginning to prepare for the upcoming holiday season.
That is a good thing for the Old Aylmer Christmas Market, which has a warm and lively experience in store for shoppers in this its seventh year of operation. I want to commend the organizers for their dedication and creativity. They have done a great job making this year's market even more magical than ever while following the public health guidelines.
This is an opportunity to buy local and stock up on products from Outaouais farmers and artisans.
For 27 years now, the Christmas festivities in Aylmer have been an opportunity for the community to come together and showcase the contributions of volunteers. Although the Santa Claus parade must be cancelled this year, the Old Aylmer Christmas Market will still be held. It supports local farmers, producers and artisans.
I invite all to come and enjoy Aylmer's natural beauty and heritage.
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2020-11-27 11:12 [p.2615]
Expand
The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.
Collapse
View Raquel Dancho Profile
CPC (MB)
View Raquel Dancho Profile
2020-11-27 11:12 [p.2615]
Expand
Madam Speaker, as the fall economic update draws near, I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to the health and economic well-being of Canadian women who have been hit hardest by the pandemic. In fact, Canada is one of the few countries in the world where women account for a greater proportion of both COVID-19 cases and deaths than men.
The economic impact of the pandemic on Canadian women has also been severe, and the ongoing mismanagement by the current Liberal government will continue to hamper Canada's economic recovery. The failure of the Prime Minister to enact a comprehensive plan to protect jobs that predominantly employ women has led to more than 20,000 women leaving the workforce altogether. The proportion of women working in Canada now is at its lowest level in 30 years, which is as long as I have been alive. It is quite incredible.
The biggest obstacle to the economic success of women in Canada, and in my riding, is the availability of the vaccine so that the economy can return to normal. Canadian women deserve to know when the vaccine will be available to them and their loved ones. They need to plan.
I am hopeful the Minister of Finance will include a detailed—
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2020-11-27 11:13 [p.2616]
Expand
The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
Collapse
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2020-11-27 11:13 [p.2616]
Expand
Madam Speaker, four years ago, six Canadians were murdered at the Quebec City mosque. The murderer was sentenced to 40 years in prison without parole, which is what the law allows for in the case of multiple murders.
Yesterday, the Quebec Court of Appeal reduced that sentence to 25 years. The president of the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City said:
It's a sad day...It's not enough...he can get out in 25 years with good behaviour...but the people who died are gone, they will never come back.
The consecutive sentencing provision for multiple murders was enacted in a law passed in 2011. This is not a Conservative law. Yes, it was passed by our government, but it has remained in force for five years under the Liberal government. The appeal court judges called this law absurd, heinous and cruel.
In our mind, what is absurd, heinous and cruel is for six Muslim Canadians to gather at the Quebec City mosque and be murdered by a criminal.
Collapse
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
2020-11-27 11:15 [p.2616]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the coastal waters of southern Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands are truly beautiful and home to a vast array of life and delicate marine ecosystems. They are among the most diverse in the world's temperate waters and offer fantastic recreation opportunities, including scuba diving, whale-watching, sea kayaking and coastal cruising.
For untold centuries, these waters have supported vibrant first nations coastal communities and continue to do so today. Unfortunately, the natural beauty of this area is under threat from the presence of large freighters that are using our waters as an overflow industrial parking lot for the Port of Vancouver.
At the same time, the federal government is actively pursuing the establishment of a national marine conservation area here. If the Liberals truly believe in the work to establish this NMCA, I urge them to support my bill, Bill C-250, which amends the Canada Shipping Act to prohibit freighters from anchoring in these waters.
Collapse
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2020-11-27 11:15 [p.2616]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I want to note that November is social economy month.
To my colleagues from other provinces who are not so familiar with this concept, since it is another thing specific to Quebec, the social economy is about co-operatives, not-for-profit organizations, and collective and inclusive entrepreneurship in service of the community.
It is about courageous people coming together to serve the people in their community, their fellow citizens. It is about the 22 centres playing a pivotal role in Quebec's economic development and an even bigger role outside the major urban centres.
The social economy refers to 11,200 businesses that generate $48 billion in revenues. It refers to 220,000 employees and 269,000 volunteers who stimulate an economy of proximity that is 100% Quebec based, with spinoffs that are 100% local.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to thank all those people for their initiatives, their creativity, and their commitment to their community. I hope they continue to innovate together. Long live the social economy—
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2020-11-27 11:16 [p.2616]
Expand
The hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk.
Collapse
View Diane Finley Profile
CPC (ON)
View Diane Finley Profile
2020-11-27 11:16 [p.2616]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honour the Deans of the Conservative Caucus: the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. They both are celebrating the 20th anniversary of their elections to this great chamber.
These two members have always been steadfast in their dedication: one to good governance and Constitution matters, the other to our Canadian military and common sense. I can say first-hand that they both approach their jobs today with the same passion and conviction as they did when I first met them, over 16 years ago. They both remain fearless when it comes to voicing their and their constituents' views.
I invite the House to join me in thanking and congratulating these two hon. members for a combined 40 years of service to our great country.
Collapse
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
2020-11-27 11:18 [p.2617]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate the life of a remarkable man, Master Corporal Derek Selleck. Derek served as a loyal member of the Canadian Armed Forces for over 20 years. He was a recipient of numerous awards and recognitions, including the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal. He served his country valiantly, as well as his community.
Humber River—Black Creek was where Derek called home. It is where he founded a multicultural women's organization that empowers women from all cultural backgrounds through sport, specifically soccer.
He was a selfless, generous man, who was proud of his legacy in the Armed Forces. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family, his brothers and sisters, and to all the community who have suffered a significant loss.
Collapse
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2020-11-27 11:19 [p.2617]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the murderer who killed six Canadians at the Quebec City mosque four years ago had his sentence reduced from 40 years to 25 years. The Quebec Court of Appeal rendered that decision yesterday. The court found the law allowing for consecutive sentences unconstitutional.
That law was passed by the previous Conservative government and has been upheld by the current Liberal government for the past five years. This law is a Canadian law. We fervently hope the Attorney General of Quebec will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
What does the government think?
Collapse
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Arif Virani Profile
2020-11-27 11:19 [p.2617]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I rise today as the parliamentary secretary, but also a Muslim Canadian member of this chamber. This decision will rekindle a great deal of hurt and anger among those who were affected by this terrible crime, including people like me in this chamber, as well the victims, their families, their friends, and people in Quebec and across the country.
Important questions are raised by this judgement, and we are going to examine this judgement fully. Our thoughts remain with the families and with the survivors. We have stood with them throughout, and we will continue to support them through this awful tragedy.
Collapse
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2020-11-27 11:20 [p.2617]
Expand
Madam Speaker, Canadians are unfortunately at the back of the pack when it comes to COVID-19.
The government was late in closing the borders. The government was late when it came to rapid tests, and now the government is late on vaccines.
I have a simple question for the government. When will Canadians be able to get the vaccine?
Collapse
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2020-11-27 11:21 [p.2617]
Expand
Madam Speaker, let's be very clear.
Every Canadian who chooses to be vaccinated will have access to a vaccine. This government has taken a dynamic, responsible approach to acquiring vaccines. We now have the best, most diverse portfolio of vaccines in the world. We have also laid the foundation for a distribution and logistics system, and we have been working with the provinces day and night since May to deploy it.
We will make sure that, when the vaccines are ready, Canada is ready.
Collapse
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2020-11-27 11:21 [p.2617]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the problem is that the vaccines are ready.
In just a few days, the British will be getting their first vaccines. In the coming weeks, the Americans and Germans will be getting theirs. By Christmas, which is just a few weeks away, over two billion people around the world will have gotten their vaccines before Canadians. One thing we know for sure is that we will not be getting vaccines for Christmas.
Can the government tell us if Canadians will get a vaccine before February 1?
Collapse
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2020-11-27 11:22 [p.2617]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent knows people at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but I do not think it is responsible to speculate about what another country's regulatory body will do.
As we have been saying for a long time, we are in this with our allies, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the European Union. We have a very substantial and comprehensive portfolio of vaccines, and we can assure Canadians that the vaccines will be available when Canada is ready, when—
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2020-11-27 11:22 [p.2617]
Expand
The hon. member for Edmonton Mill Woods.
Collapse
View Tim Uppal Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tim Uppal Profile
2020-11-27 11:22 [p.2617]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the Liberals spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Canadian production of the COVID-19 vaccine. In August, they announced that Canada would be able to make 250,000 doses by November. It is now the end of November, and the Prime Minister is saying that we do not have any domestic production capacity.
The reality is that, because of Liberal failures, Canada will be getting the vaccine after one third of the world's population does. What happened?
Collapse
View William Amos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View William Amos Profile
2020-11-27 11:23 [p.2618]
Expand
Madam Speaker, when this pandemic began, Canadians understood that we did not have significant biomanufacturing capacity, and that was certainly not helped by the previous anti-science Conservative government. However, we have made significant investments, both prior to the pandemic and now during the pandemic, to augment our biomanufacturing capacity to enable life sciences investments at ISED.
We are continuing to do the right things and make the right investments, and our biomanufacturing capacity is increasing thanks to those investments.
Collapse
View Tim Uppal Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tim Uppal Profile
2020-11-27 11:23 [p.2618]
Expand
Madam Speaker, just having a contract for a vaccine is very different than actually knowing when most Canadians will receive that vaccine.
What we do know is the Americans will be vaccinating 20 million of their population in December, and 30 million in January. By the middle of January, the U.S. will have vaccinated the equivalent of the entire population of Canada.
I am asking again, why is Canada at the back of the line when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccine?
Collapse
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2020-11-27 11:24 [p.2618]
Expand
Madam Speaker, from the outset, we have clearly recognized the unparalleled undertaking of procuring vaccines for Canadians and the challenges that come with it.
We have been working around the clock with our officials and provinces since May on a vaccine distribution system. We will continue to deliver the strongest possible response to COVID-19. We have said it in this chamber, and we have said it in committee. We have said it to the media and the public, and are happy to repeat it here again.
We will be receiving COVID-19 vaccines in the first quarter of 2021. We are confident in our position. Canadians can be very proud of the position that Canada is in. When a vaccine is in ready in Canada—
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2020-11-27 11:24 [p.2618]
Expand
The hon. member for Saint-Jean.
Collapse
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Christine Normandin Profile
2020-11-27 11:24 [p.2618]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the Liberals have even admitted that they filter the appointment of judges through a partisan tool, the “Liberalist”, to check the political connections of candidates.
According to reports yesterday from the Journal de Montréal and the CBC, the Liberals held an in camera vote to stop a committee investigation into patronage appointments to the bench.
The Minister of Justice keeps repeating that the appointment process is open and transparent. If the process is so open and transparent, why did the Liberals need to vote in secret to stop an investigation?
Collapse
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Arif Virani Profile
2020-11-27 11:25 [p.2618]
Expand
Madam Speaker, we have brought in an open and transparent appointments process.
In 2016, we made essential reforms, including the reform to the judicial advisory committee. This led to the appointment of more than 400 exceptional legal experts to the bench.
The diversity of these appointments is also unprecedented. Of the judges appointed under the new process since 2016, 10% are from racialized communities, 5% identify as LGBTQ2, 3% are indigenous and 1% are people living with disabilities.
Collapse
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Christine Normandin Profile
2020-11-27 11:26 [p.2618]
Expand
Madam Speaker, if the process is as good as the parliamentary secretary says it is, he should not be afraid if we ask some questions. That said, the media is reporting that the Liberals blocked a study in committee on the partisan appointment of judges. They were abetted by the NDP, once again, and it happened in camera, behind closed doors.
What did they offer the NDP to stifle the judicial appointment scandal? Was this the reward for extending eligibility for the wage subsidy to political parties, or will we start seeing NDP judges?
Collapse
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Arif Virani Profile
2020-11-27 11:26 [p.2618]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the Canadian Bar Association sent a letter to all parliamentarians.
It stated that the Canadian Bar Association had not accused the government of interfering in the process by appointing its friends, nor had it suggested that the process has resulted in the appointment of unworthy candidates.
It reiterated that merit must determine the best candidates, who also reflect the diversity of Canada's populations.
In 2016, our government made essential reforms and put in place an open and transparent appointment process.
Collapse
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
View Rachel Blaney Profile
2020-11-27 11:27 [p.2618]
Expand
Madam Speaker, this week the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered the government to apply Jordan's Principle to non-status first nations children living off reserve who are recognized by their community.
The Liberal government has already received nine non-compliance orders from the tribunal regarding the racist treatment of indigenous children in care. Will the minister please commit today to not appealing this decision? Will the government do this, or will it continue to fight indigenous kids in court?
Collapse
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, we welcome the order of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. I would note for the member opposite that our department is currently reviewing and revising what was said in the order, but we are looking forward to the implementation of this definition, which expands the definition of first nations children. It is so important for closing the socio-economic gap between non-indigenous and indigenous children.
I would note for the member opposite that, since 2016, we have provided 750,000 supports, and behind every support is an indigenous child, as well as budget investments of $1.2 billion in 2019 to close that gap as we continue to implement the order.
Collapse
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
2020-11-27 11:28 [p.2619]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the Liberals are good at making fancy speeches and grand announcements.
They are not so good at answering Canadians' calls, however. In fact, the government has just stopped responding. Its programs are unclear and confusing. People have questions, but they are sick and tired of waiting hours on the phone to get the right information.
Will the Liberals provide the necessary resources to answer people's questions, or, at the very least, give parliamentarians a reliable tool to answer our constituents' questions?
Collapse
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2020-11-27 11:29 [p.2619]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I can appreciate the member's question.
The government goes the best it can at providing the responses that are necessary in order to try to accommodate the type of answers that members are looking for. I know that the member is not necessarily specifically putting a question to a specific department, but, unfortunately, that is the best I can do for an answer.
Collapse
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
2020-11-27 11:29 [p.2619]
Expand
Madam Speaker, this week we found out that the delivery of the Pfizer vaccine will be, according to the minister, a just-in-time delivery method. This vaccine needs to be stored below -70°C. This means that our capacity to give that vaccine to Canadians depends on our capacity to store it.
By April 1, 2021, how many doses of the Pfizer vaccine will Canada be able to receive from the company per week?
Collapse
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2020-11-27 11:30 [p.2619]
Expand
Madam Speaker, what we have been repeatedly saying is that we have been working with the provinces for many months now, since May, in fact, day and night. The best people in the Government of Canada, and the best people right across this country, are working on this.
I want to take this opportunity to applaud the hard-working and dedicated public servants who are putting in place one of the world's most robust vaccine logistics and distribution systems, which will obviously conform to the requirements of specific vaccines. Canada will be ready when those vaccines are ready.
Collapse
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
2020-11-27 11:30 [p.2619]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the government signed a contract with a company called CanSino regarding a COVID vaccine in early May. Contracts with the leading vaccine candidates were not signed until months later. The CanSino deal fell apart on August 26.
For the period between May 12, when the deal was announced, and August 26, was the Minister of Public Safety ever briefed by CSIS or the RCMP about potential problems with Canada signing a deal with CanSino for a COVID vaccine?
Collapse
View Bill Blair Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bill Blair Profile
2020-11-27 11:31 [p.2619]
Expand
Madam Speaker, although I cannot speak to the specifics of any advice given by the national security establishment in this or any other case, let me assure the member opposite that the national security of services of Canada, CSIS and CSE, are very conscientious and comprehensive in the advice they give to government. We pay a great deal of attention to their advice.
Collapse
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
2020-11-27 11:31 [p.2619]
Expand
Madam Speaker, we know Canadians will not receive the COVID vaccine until months after other countries have. This will cost lives and jobs.
The government's decision to focus on a deal with CanSino, which may have been signed due to diplomatic priorities as opposed to health priorities, may have fallen apart due to diplomatic reprisal or advice from CSIS and the RCMP.
Did that decision have any role to play in why Canadians are so far behind in receiving doses of vaccines from other companies?
Collapse
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2020-11-27 11:32 [p.2619]
Expand
Madam Speaker, it is quite the contrary. Canada is in a very privileged position with a diversified portfolio of vaccine candidates. We look forward to the regulatory approval of all of those. In fact, of the first three that have received encouraging news, Canada has arrangements with all three of those vaccine candidates.
Canada compares very favourably. For example, with the Moderna vaccine, we were among the first in the world, in front the U.K. Canada is in a very good position. When vaccines are ready, Canada will be ready.
Collapse
View Jacques Gourde Profile
CPC (QC)
View Jacques Gourde Profile
2020-11-27 11:32 [p.2620]
Expand
Madam Speaker, Canadians are becoming impatient, the provinces are becoming impatient and our health care system is stretched thin.
The government has been very vague about when we can expect vaccines. At the current rate, Canadians will be getting vaccines after some countries that Canada wants to help, which raises some questions about this government's standing on the world's stage.
Could we be given consideration and get the vaccines at the same time as the other G7 countries?
Collapse
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2020-11-27 11:33 [p.2620]
Expand
Madam Speaker, our order book and portfolio of vaccines compare favourably to those of the rest of the world.
Of our seven suppliers of potential vaccines, three have been very promising. This was good news. Canada is working with the 10 provinces and three territories and with those arranging the logistics to distribute the vaccines.
When the vaccines are ready, Canada will be ready.
Collapse
View Jacques Gourde Profile
CPC (QC)
View Jacques Gourde Profile
2020-11-27 11:33 [p.2620]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the government needs to consider all the options to strengthen Canada's vaccine production capacity.
One very simple way to do that is to provide Canadian companies with a long-term guarantee that the government will buy Canadian-made vaccines on a regular basis. That would support Canadian infrastructure and know-how.
When will the government sign long-term agreements with Canadian companies to manufacture vaccines?
Collapse
View William Amos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View William Amos Profile
2020-11-27 11:34 [p.2620]
Expand
Madam Speaker, when the pandemic started, Canada's production capacity was minimal. It was important to address the lack of investment in production capacity.
This has been a problem for decades, and we immediately realized that we needed to invest in the country's production capacity.
That is what we did. We have increased that capacity. We are building it. I know that Canadians have confidence in the investments we are—
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2020-11-27 11:34 [p.2620]
Expand
The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.
Collapse
View Bernard Généreux Profile
CPC (QC)
Madam Speaker, Dany Tremblay, the CEO of Plastiques Gagnon in Saint-Jean-Port-Joli has been waiting since June 1, 2019, for the foreign workers he hoped to bring in from Madagascar because they are not only qualified, but also francophone.
The labour market impact assessment has been complete since last year, but because of this government's delays, Mr. Tremblay just lost a $4-million-a-year contract that went to a plant in Mexico instead.
The Government of Canada has 300,000 employees. What is the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship waiting for? When will he reassign as many of those employees as necessary to do something about these these completely unacceptable delays?
Collapse
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
2020-11-27 11:35 [p.2620]
Expand
Before I give the floor to the parliamentary secretary, I want to remind all members who are joining us virtually to mute their microphones.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Collapse
View Soraya Martinez Ferrada Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Soraya Martinez Ferrada Profile
2020-11-27 11:35 [p.2620]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the pandemic has impacted nearly every aspect of our lives
Local restrictions have resulted in the closure of many international visa centres, but Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's processing centres have remained open. We are continuing to increase capacity while respecting public health guidelines.
What is more, we have put a number of innovative measures in place to process existing applications as quickly as possible and reduce COVID-19-related delays.
Collapse
View Marilène Gill Profile
BQ (QC)
View Marilène Gill Profile
2020-11-27 11:36 [p.2620]
Expand
Madam Speaker, this week, eight months into the pandemic, the Prime Minister informed us that the vaccine would arrive here later than in other countries.
Last night, the Prime Minister spoke with the Premier of Quebec, François Legault. Quebec is preparing its vaccination plan and wanted to know two fundamental things: When will Quebec receive its first doses and how many doses a week will it receive?
Did the Prime Minister provide him a response? Can he share it here? The public has the right to know.
Collapse
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven MacKinnon Profile
2020-11-27 11:37 [p.2620]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and Canadians that the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec are working together to deliver vaccines to Quebeckers and Canadians. They will do so by relying on the best portfolio of vaccine candidates in the world.
Once a vaccine is approved, we will be able to communicate more specific information to the provinces, but until then we will make sure that the logistics and distribution system is ready when the vaccine is ready. Quebeckers can rest assured.
Collapse
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2020-11-27 11:38 [p.2621]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary did not answer the question, but I suspect he does not know the answer.
It has been eight months since the race for the vaccine began, and the federal government has done nothing to have it produced here. It did not convince pharmaceutical companies to get licences from the more advanced companies, as is being done elsewhere. It did nothing to increase production capacity here. It has not aligned its approval process with that of advanced producer countries. The government put all its eggs in the foreign deal basket, and this week it is telling us that it lost the deal, so we have all lost.
How does the government explain this failure to Quebeckers?
Collapse
View William Amos Profile
Lib. (QC)
View William Amos Profile
2020-11-27 11:38 [p.2621]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the Canadian public knows full well that the Harper Conservative government was hostile to science. It made cuts to research, cuts to funding for biotech companies and no investments in the manufacturing capacity of these companies.
Our government is investing in this area. We are building that capacity, and Canadians will be protected. We have everything we need in the vaccine portfolio. We are there for Canadians.
Collapse
View Tracy Gray Profile
CPC (BC)
View Tracy Gray Profile
2020-11-27 11:38 [p.2621]
Expand
Madam Speaker, it has been a week since the government announced a new trade deal between Canada and the United Kingdom, yet we still have few details. We have learned the government failed to consult in any meaningful way with businesses and labour over the entire three years it was apparently working on this deal. It is disappointing, it is top down and it is certainly a missed opportunity.
Why did the minister not feel it was important to reach out and hear from businesses and labour organizations?
Collapse
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
2020-11-27 11:40 [p.2621]
Expand
Madam Speaker, when it comes to defending the interests of Canadians, we ensure the views and voices of all Canadians are heard. The new trade continuity agreement with the United Kingdom is not a comprehensive new trade agreement. It is a rollover essentially of CETA, which we negotiated over seven years and consulted extensively with all stakeholders during that time.
As we have always done, we will continue to engage with Canadian businesses, labour and key stakeholders on negotiating the full and comprehensive trade agreement with the U.K. that is upcoming in the next year.
Collapse
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2020-11-27 11:40 [p.2621]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the Liberal government claims to be protecting supply management, but it made some unprecedented concessions in the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement.
In 2019, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food promised an eight-year compensation plan with a cheque in an election year, but dairy producers are still waiting for the seven other years. Egg and poultry producers have yet to receive anything, and the same goes for processors.
Canada is now starting negotiations with the United Kingdom. Will the Prime Minister commit to making no new concessions on supply management?
Collapse
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
2020-11-27 11:40 [p.2621]
Expand
Madam Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said many times, private sector access to supply management is prohibited in all future trade negotiations.
To be very clear with all of our dairy producers, not a single ounce of cheese will enter into the country through the transitional agreement with the United Kingdom. We have fought tooth and nail to protect supply management on behalf of our producers.
We are there for Quebeckers and Canadians across the country.
Collapse
View Tracy Gray Profile
CPC (BC)
View Tracy Gray Profile
2020-11-27 11:41 [p.2621]
Expand
Madam Speaker, the Minister of International Trade recently spoke about an agreement signed with Australia on wine excise taxes, saying she was pleased that we came to an agreement. This agreement will be devastating to Canadian domestic wineries as it gave Australia basically what it wanted, which was Canadian wineries paying an excise tax.
Can the minister please explain what is so pleasing about putting thousands of Canadian jobs at risk and having domestic Canadian wineries paying $40 million in new taxes?
Collapse
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
2020-11-27 11:42 [p.2621]
Expand
Madam Speaker, I would like to assure the member opposite that our government understands the tremendous value the wine industry brings to Canada and the contribution the sector brings to our reputation as a world-class agricultural producer. Our government will continue to stand up for Canadian workers and defend the interests of our Canadian wine industry. We are working closely with the provinces on this issue and will continue to stand up for Canadian workers and our wine industry.
Collapse
Results: 1 - 100 of 150000 | Page: 1 of 1500

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Show both languages
Refine Your Search
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data