Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 45
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
Mr. Speaker, fewer than 1% of Canadians have received their second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Forty-second is where Canada ranks on the world stage in terms of vaccines administered per capita. This is not the team Canada I know. This means more loved ones getting sick and more restrictions keeping us apart. It means more difficulty for the many sectors that continue to struggle.
From the White Rock Promenade to The Shops at Morgan Crossing, businesses in my riding are hurting. In January, the unemployment rate in B.C. hit 8%, up 3.4% from a year ago.
Access to vaccines would help us all get back to our friends, families, and work. It would help new businesses, such as the Eggcetra Breakfast Cafe in Surrey, thrive. We need to get the vaccine rollout right in order to secure jobs and secure our economic future.
I will leave the House with one final number: 701 is the number of days since the last federal budget.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
Mr. Speaker, I rise virtually today to present two petitions submitted by mothers in my riding of South Surrey—White Rock whose families have been affected by opioid addiction.
Linda tragically lost her beautiful son Justin to a fentanyl overdose. Brenda worries for her son who has struggled with addiction in the past. As a mother of four, I can understand the pain these families have endured. My heart goes out to Linda, Brenda and their families, and to all Canadians affected by drug addiction.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present a petition calling on the Liberal government to apply Magnitsky sanctions against 14 officials from the Chinese Communist Party for various and serious human rights violations, including the persecution of the Falun Gong.
As a lawyer and former administrative law judge on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, I have been a lifelong advocate for human rights at home and abroad. This is a matter that has to be taken seriously.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
Mr. Speaker, cross-border Peace Arch Park in my riding is a U.S.-Canada border loophole. For Mike, Charlaine and their neighbours, who live next to the park, this is intolerable. Since Washington State reopened its side in May, visitors from across Canada and the U.S. are constantly meeting in the park and returning home, with no tracing, no quarantines. We saw many picnics and counted 60 pitched tents last Sunday.
Does the minister not see this as a public health issue?
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
Madam Speaker, I rise virtually to debate Bill C-14, an act seeking to legislate elements of the Liberal government’s long-awaited fiscal update, which was announced last fall.
I would like to mention that it is my granddaughter Avery Chapman’s first birthday today, and I care very much about the Canada she is inheriting, as she goes from walking to running to embracing her future.
As proud Canadians, let us first consider where we are and how we got here. For the past five years, the Liberal government has opened Canada’s pocketbook, running up our national debt to historic levels. Despite revenues being at an all-time high because of the strong fiscal foundation left by the previous Conservative government, year after year the Liberals ran deficit after deficit. There were deficits of $19 billion in 2016, another $19 billion in 2017, $14 billion in 2018 and $26 billion in 2019.
Liberal campaign promises in 2015 of a balanced budget and a $1-billion surplus have been dropped entirely from the Trudeau Liberals’ vocabulary. The Liberals spent so freely—
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
Madam Speaker, I apologize.
The Liberals spent so freely before the pandemic that instead of being prepared for the possibility of an economic downturn, and economies are always cyclical, the cupboards were bare long before the first case of COVID–19 was known.
The pandemic has demanded more spending, but it should also demand transparency and explanations as spending priorities are rolled out. Workable solutions that benefit the most needy and support the survival of Canadian small businesses, new and established, should be at the top of the list.
The Liberal government racked up a $381-billion deficit in 2020. This deficit equalled 17% of our GDP, which made for a higher debt-to-GDP ratio than we realized in World War I, the Great Depression or the great recession.
With the addition of this $381-billion deficit to our balance sheet, our national debt recently surpassed a tragic milestone, a debt of $1 trillion, which is a first for Canada. That is $1,000 billion for those counting. This all from the party whose leader famously stated, “The budget will balance itself”.
While these numbers may seem too big to comprehend, let me speak plainly. This is money that we, the taxpayers of Canada, collectively owe. It is debt that accrues interest each and every day. It is money that we have an obligation to repay, that our children will be on the hook for, and in all likelihood, that our children’s children, such as one-year-old Avery, will be paying off decades from now. Is this to be our legacy? We can and must do better.
What does all this debt really mean for Canadians? It is not just a number on a balance sheet somewhere. It means that Canadians could face higher taxes to pay down the debt and its interest, taxes that could further stifle the economy. It means the social supports and programs that many Canadians rely on could falter. It means that we could face another economic crisis with decreases in the value of homes, a declining stock market, loss of people’s savings, reduced pension values and the rise in unemployment lasting far longer than was necessary.
I hope members on both sides of the aisle recognize the human toll that another financial crisis would have on mental health, substance abuse, depression, domestic violence and homelessness. These are tragedies that are unfolding around us, which have already increased at alarming rates this past year. They are issues that my constituents and I feel deeply about, and that we are already studying at the justice committee, of which I am a member.
That takes me to where we are. Finally, at the end of 2020, after months of calls from our side of the House for a comprehensive budget to show Canadians where their tax dollars, and all this debt-financed spending, is being spent, the Liberals gave Canadians a “budget lite” and a “budget really lite”, which they called their fiscal update. That fiscal update included a proposed $25 billion in new spending measures and a $100-billion stimulus plan, but again, few details about how the money would be spent, or how and when it would be paid for.
The day after it was presented in the House of Commons, the deputy minister of finance, the highest-ranking bureaucrat in the government’s finance ministry, abruptly announced his resignation. We can add this to the growing list of high-profile resignations under the government, which now includes the following: Julie Payette, the former governor general; Bill Morneau, the former minister of finance; Jane Philpott, the former president of the Treasury Board; the member for Vancouver Granville, who served as the minister of justice and attorney general; Michael Wernick, the former clerk of the Privy Council; Gerald Butts, the former principal secretary to the Prime Minister; and the member for Mississauga—Malton, who served as the minister of innovation, science and industry.
To replace the deputy minister of finance, the Liberals appointed Michael Sabia, an architect behind the GST, which was introduced in the 1990s. That tax was later lowered by the Harper-led government, thanks to sound financial management. Does Mr. Sabia's appointment signal to Canadians that the Liberals plan to raise taxes? Will the government really start taxing the equity in Canadian home ownership, as is being widely reported? Only time will tell.
One thing I know for certain, as an MP and as the former minister of national revenue, is that the lack of a federal budget is simply unacceptable. The budget is not just a planning tool for the government. It is the means by which the government announces in detail to Canadians from coast to coast to coast what it plans to do with billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
According to the government's own website:
The Budget is a blueprint for how the Government wants to set the annual economic agenda for Canada. And it's the job of the Department of Finance to prepare it.
The last federal budget was presented on March 19, 2019. That was 686 days ago. So much for an annual budget. So much for promised transparency.
As for some of the specifics Canadians were given, the most troubling part of the bill before us is the amendment it proposes to the Borrowing Authority Act. This amendment seeks to increase the government's maximum borrowing authority from $1.1 trillion to $1.8 trillion, a new maximum limit on the nation's credit card. This sets another record, as it is the biggest increase in borrowing authority ever sought in our nation's history. I ask members to let that sink in for a moment. It is more than in World War II or past global recessions.
At this point, why should Canadians trust the government? We have all seen the headlines, which include: “CRA admits ‘unclear’ CERB communications led to mistaken applications”; “CERB repayment frustration continues”; “More than $636M in CERB benefits paid to 300,000 teens aged 15 to 17, documents show”; “Troubled pandemic rent subsidy program expires today – and there’s no replacement ready”; “Exclusive golf course books $1 million surplus, aided by federal COVID-19 relief”; and “$150 million more to SNC-Lavalin.” Really? The SNC-Lavalin that is mired in scandal and ethical challenges?
Conservatives want to help Canadians make ends meet. They recognize that the virus has affected millions of Canadians in a variety of ways, my family included. I know far too many constituents who have been laid off in the hospitality sector, tourism industry and retail businesses. I have heard from countless South Surrey—White Rock business owners who are struggling to keep their doors open. Throughout the riding, our once bustling restaurant and shopping scene, including many shops along our picturesque White Rock Pier, are enduring catastrophic drops in patronage and revenue, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Our airline industry, which employs many in my riding, is hemorrhaging. Of course I am in favour of the emergency response benefit, the wage subsidy, and the emergency business account, but we need to ensure these programs are rolled out correctly, and that funds are timely, spent effectively, and spent in Canada to help Canadians.
We need to ensure that through these billions of dollars in spending, no Canadian is left behind. So far, that is not what we have seen. There are many new businesses in my community whose investments were all made before the pandemic hit that are not eligible for current subsidy programs because they opened their doors after March 2020. Who is looking out for them?
Given the astronomical size of our country’s debt, we really cannot afford to get this recovery wrong. We need to spend, but to spend responsibly. We need transparency and we need a true, comprehensive budget. More than anything, we need to get Canadians back to work and a clear roadmap to recovery.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member did not really listen to what I was saying, so I will repeat it. I said that I was in favour of helping Canadians, as my Conservative colleagues are. As he knows, we took a team Canada approach and supported many measures to help Canadians. What we do believe in is doing it responsibly and not giving flagrant amounts of money, huge amounts of money, to those who do not need it.
SNC-Lavalin's $150 million this past year is a good example of that. I take issue with the member talking about the former Conservative government and deficits without talking about the circumstances of those deficits, which was to slowly build out of a global recession, and which that government did successfully, leaving a surplus.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
Madam Speaker, actually, I am a great optimist. That is my personality. I really believe that Canada and Canadians will build their way out of our present situation through Canadian innovation and ingenuity, and through being responsible with spending and programs. We need to help, but we cannot do it without transparency. We certainly cannot do it without a proper budget and a proper plan. Right now, we do not see that from the Liberal government. I was commenting on the fact that the government had put before us its fiscal updates as opposed to budgets.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
Madam Speaker, I know my colleague to be a very caring member of Parliament in high regard and of long-standing.
This is where we should never have one-size-fits-all policies like this. We have to take into account specific circumstances. I agree that this seems like a huge bill for people who can ill afford it and who may have been put in that situation.
The government is not being consistent across our borders. In my own riding, we have the Peace Arch Park where people are being allowed to come from all across Canada and the United States to meet up with each other, because the Liberal government has not addressed the opening on the Washington state side.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
Madam Speaker, as a lawyer, a former judge on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and a lifelong advocate for human rights, I am distressed by the atrocities committed against the Uighur Muslims in China. Forced sterilizations, arbitrary detentions and anti-religious indoctrination are simply unacceptable. There is no place for this in our world.
That is why I present this petition today, which also calls on the Liberal government to formally recognize that Uighurs in China are being subjected to genocide and to impose Magnitsky sanctions on those responsible.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
Mr. Speaker, it has been one year since the senseless, preventable death of 22-year-old Marylène Levesque in Quebec City by a convicted murderer who had brutally killed his wife, yet was out on day parole so he could satisfy his “sexual needs”.
We now know from a report released last week by correctional and parole officials that there were warning signs that were missed in this case.
Does the Prime Minister accept responsibility for the failures of the correctional services in the tragic death of Marylène Levesque?
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since the senseless, preventable murder of 22-year-old Marylène Levesque in Quebec City by a convicted murderer who had brutally killed his wife yet was out on day parole so he could satisfy his “sexual needs”. We now know from a report released last week by corrections and parole officers that warning signs were missed in this case.
Does the Prime Minister accept responsibility for the failures of correctional services to prevent the tragic death of Marylène Levesque?
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak on Bill C-238, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding the possession of unlawfully imported firearms. I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville, for his thoughtful and hard work on this critical issue.
I am extremely proud to represent the people of South Surrey—White Rock and to call this beautiful part of our great nation my home, but despite the many great things about this vibrant, wholesome community, my constituents and I share a growing concern about gang-related gun violence on our streets. Over the holidays, tragedy struck our community and nearby. On December 28, Tequel Willis was shot eight times as he exited a taxi in Surrey. Tequel was 14 years old. He was pronounced dead on the scene. He is believed to be the youngest-ever victim of gang violence in B.C.
A day earlier, emergency services responded to a call for help in Surrey and found 19-year-old Harman Singh Dhesi with gunshot wounds. He later died in hospital. Unfortunately, these are not isolated incidents. In a four-day stretch earlier this month, 28-year-old Dilraj Johal from Surrey was found dead with gunshot wounds in neighbouring Richmond; Anees Mohammed, 29, was shot and killed in Steveston Community Park, which is in a riding close to mine; and Gary Kang, 24, was gunned down in his parents' Surrey home, which is actually very close to where I live. Something needs to be done to address this grim reality.
Our hard-working Canadian border agents who process around 100 million travellers annually have seized more than 4,200 guns at the border since 2014, but despite their best efforts, which I commend them for, experts believe many smuggled guns go undetected. While it is difficult to know exactly how many firearms get through customs illegally, some estimates suggest 70% or more of crime guns in Canada are smuggled in. We also know that two in five homicides committed in Canada in 2019 were committed with a firearm, 60% of which were handguns.
I am concerned not only because of the recent violence in my community, but also because my Lower Mainland riding shares a border with the United States. Along that border are two legal border crossings, Douglas and Pacific Highway. My community is also home to the Peace Arch Provincial Park, which runs along the border and allows visitors from both sides to visit without officially making entry into the neighbouring country. In addition to the southern border, B.C. shares a second border with Alaska, and the harbours along our Pacific coast receive international shipments every day.
Our neighbours to the south are our closest allies, our biggest trading partner and, in many cases, our friends and family, but the fact remains that it is much easier to access guns south of the border and too many of those guns are winding up on Canadian soil. That is why I support my Conservative colleague's private member's bill to increase the penalties for the possession of unlawfully imported firearms. Bill C-238 would address the problem in two ways: by increasing mandatory sentencing and making it more difficult for persons charged to be released on bail.
Let us first consider the mandatory sentencing. If one is prosecuted by indictment, this bill would raise the minimum sentence for possessing an unlawfully imported firearm that the person knows was obtained by the commission of a crime from one to three years, and the maximum sentence from 10 years to 14 years. Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out six objectives for sentencing. The first three are (a) denouncing unlawful conduct, (b) deterring offenders and (c) separating offenders from society. The increased sentences under Bill C-238 would accomplish all three.
The longer sentences would make clear to all Canadians that the possession of a smuggled firearm is a serious offence that will not be tolerated, effectively denouncing the activity in the clearest of terms. The threat of an increased penalty would deter some criminals from possessing these smuggled arms. This deterrence, in effect, should also affect the supply chain. Less demand for smuggled guns should mean less smuggled guns in the first place. As for separating offenders from society, those convicted of this dangerous crime would be kept off the streets for longer, ensuring that they are unable to commit additional, potentially dangerous, crimes.
Last October, the NDP member for St. John's East argued, as did the member for North Island—Powell River today, that the mandatory minimums in this bill are unconstitutional. Both members pointed to the 2015 Supreme Court decision in R. v. Nur.
In that case, the court struck down the minimum sentence for possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with access to ammunition, but the law in that case is distinguishable from the bill at hand.
In Nur, Chief Justice McLachlin, writing for the majority, reasoned that the three-year minimum sentence for possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with access to ammunition violated section 12 of the charter as cruel and unusual punishment, because when applied not to the actual facts of that case but to reasonably foreseeable facts, the sentence would not fit the crime.
One reasonably foreseeable scenario the court used as a hypothetical was “the licensed and responsible gun owner who stores his unloaded firearm safely with ammunition nearby, but makes a mistake as to where it can be stored.” The court explained that in this reasonably foreseeable hypothetical, the minimum sentence would be grossly disproportionate to the crime. According to the court, the “bottom line” was that the possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with access to ammunition offence “foreseeably catches licensing offences that involve little or no moral fault and little or no danger to the public. For these offences three years' imprisonment is grossly disproportionate to a fit and fair sentence.”
Clearly, the court's reasoning in Nur would not apply here. The possession of an illegal smuggled firearm that the accused knows was obtained through crime is not a mere licensing offence involving no moral fault or danger to the public. There is no reasonably foreseeable scenario in which someone, by licensing error or otherwise, accidentally violates the law against possession of a smuggled firearm that they knew was illegally obtained. To the contrary, these are guns that are bought and sold on the black market with their serial numbers shaved off, used in the commission of dangerous crimes. The mandatory minimums in the bill, I believe, are both constitutional and warranted.
The bill would also subject those charged with possession of a smuggled firearm to reverse-onus bail. For most crimes, the onus at the bail hearing is on the prosecution to show why the accused should be detained. However, subsection 515(6) would provide that for several enumerated crimes, this onus would be reversed, and instead the accused would have to show why they should be released.
Under the current scheme, several firearm-related offences already call for reverse-onus bail. This includes weapons trafficking and possession for purposes of weapons trafficking.
As mentioned earlier, my community has recently experienced a spike in gun violence, with victims tragically as young as 14 years old. As a member of Parliament and mother, there is no higher moral obligation for me than the need to keep our children and communities safe. Simply put, this bill would make my community and many like it across Canada safer places to live. That is why I support Bill C-238 and urge other members to do the same.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs told Canadians threatened by those acting for Communist China to call their local police. Is that what I should say to Father Soo, the Richmond priest whose parishioners were photographed during a baptism? How about the pro-democracy advocate who was beaten up in Surrey?
Sure police can respond after the fact, but what active steps is the minister taking to stop the harassment from Communist China within our borders?
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to the two amendments moved by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton and to the impacts of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code respecting medical assistance in dying.
When I first rose to speak to the bill a month ago, I stressed the importance of a careful, diligent review of the legislation. The bill is crucial to Canadians, and what could be more important than matters that affect life and death?
Unfortunately, through my observations, research and participation as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, what I have witnessed falls well short of the thorough appraisal for which I had hoped.
The committee heard approximately eight hours of testimony on this profound legislation, a bill that would make Canada's MAID regime among the most permissive in the world. On two occasions my Conservative colleagues moved for additional days of witness testimony. We asked first for two days. It was voted down. We then asked for one day. Again, it was voted down.
November is Indigenous Disability Awareness Month. I am sad to say that in studying Bill C-7, the committee did not take the time to hear from a single representative of the indigenous community. This is a travesty and we should all be ashamed. In the eight hours we had, we heard from both MAID practitioners and many doctors and advocates for persons with disabilities who passionately opposed Bill C-7.
Today, in the House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice stated that Bill C-7 took into account the autonomy and dignity of the disability community. Persons with disabilities in Canada overwhelmingly disagree. Who are we to deny their lived reality and ignore their personal experiences?
Roger Foley, who suffers from a severe neurodegenerative illness, testified about the coercive pressures he had personally faced to choose MAID. He told the committee his health care needs were neglected and that he felt pressure by medical staff who specifically raised MAID as an option.
We heard from Dr. Ramona Coelho, who practises home care for many vulnerable patients. She explained that she had observed transient suicidal ideation in her patients, meaning while they sometimes have thoughts about suicide or wanting to die, with good supports, they often later choose to live. In highlighting the problem with the bill's 90-day period for individuals for whom death would not be imminent, Dr. Coelho explained that many treatments had waiting lists longer than 90 days. She also urged the committee to adopt a conscience amendment that would protect doctors and other health care professionals who did not want to participate in Canada's MAID regime.
Dr. Leonie Herx, Associate Professor and Head of Palliative Care at Queen's University, told the committee that the elimination of the 10-day waiting period would not allow time for a person who might have a transient death wish to change his or her mind, adding that patients often changed their minds when they were shown proper care. Dr. Herx also spoke to the witness requirement. She noted that having two witnesses helped ensure individuals were not coerced into choosing MAID. Specific examples of such coercion are known.
We heard there were not enough protections for persons with disabilities from Bonnie Brayton, national executive director of DisAbled Women's Network of Canada. Dr. Catherine Frazee, Professor Emerita, School of Disability Studies, Ryerson University, asked why persons with disabilities were being singled out by the legislation. It is a valid question.
Krista Carr, executive vice president of Inclusion Canada, told the committee, “The disability community is appalled that Bill C-7 would allow people with a disability to have their lives ended when they are suffering but not dying.” She added that every national disability organization disagreed with Bill C-7.
We heard from Dr. Heidi Janz, representing the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. She advocated for better monitoring of the MAID program, keeping the 10-day reflection period and two witness requirement and adding a condition that MAID must first be brought up by the patient, not the doctor. People do change their minds. Putting thoughts of death into a patient's mind can be very dangerous to his or her possible recovery.
David Roberge, representing the Canadian Bar Association, asked the committee to clarify what constitutes reasonably foreseeable death, noting the current law has caused significant uncertainty in practice. This is not defined in the legislation.
We also heard from Michel Racicot, a lawyer from Living with Dignity, who told us the Truchon decision should have been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which I fundamentally agree with. We are making what some have called life-shattering changes to a MAID regime, which has not been properly studied since it was first introduced five years ago, based on a Quebec Superior Court decision that was not appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada. The government has expanded its bill far past that original court decision.
Based on the text of the bill before us, apparently not all parties heard the same testimony. My Conservative colleagues and I proposed several common-sense amendments, as did the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois. These amendments sought to add safeguards to Canada's MAID regime to protect Canada's most vulnerable populations at moments of peak vulnerability, and would add reporting requirements to track MAID in Canada so we could properly review the program and better assess its flaws. This reporting was woefully unavailable as we studied this bill. At nearly every turn, the Liberals voted against these amendments.
The Conservatives proposed keeping safeguards from the 2016 legislation, passed by a Liberal majority government, such as requiring that MAID requests be signed and dated before two independent witnesses, and that Canadians choosing MAID receive a 10-day reflection period that would afford a final opportunity to deliberate the irreversible action of ending one's life. The Liberals voted against both.
When our 10-day reflection period was voted down, we proposed a period of seven days. Again, the Liberals voted against it. Unlike the previous MAID regime enacted in 2016, this bill extends the availability of MAID to those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable and introduces a 90-day waiting period before the end-of-life procedure may be carried out.
We proposed extending the period to 120 days to allow patients more time to see doctors, consider available treatments and see what their lives could be like with the proper supports in place. The Liberals voted against that.
We then tried to at least clarify the specific event that would trigger the beginning of the 90-day period. The Liberals voted against that, too.
The Conservatives were not the only party to listen to the testimony of doctors and people with disabilities advocating for safeguards. I applaud the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for proposing an amendment that would require individuals considering MAID, when death is not imminent, to receive a consultation with a palliative care professional. The member also proposed that the living conditions of persons requesting MAID, and the care made available to them, be recorded for program assessment purposes. The Liberals voted against that.
I also thank the member for Montcalm for two thoughtful amendments. One sought to provide clarity around the ambiguous phrase “reasonably foreseeable death” by drawing the line at having one year to live. The second asked for a review of Canada's MAID regime within 12 months of royal assent. As members can guess, the Liberals voted against both.
A system that does not seriously consider safeguards and reporting requirements, and that does not protect health care professionals, is broken before it begins. We heard time and again that these changes are essential. The Liberal government simply will not listen.
We are left with only one independent witness, and no reflection period for those facing imminent death; a 90-day waiting period, with no clear start date; a bill that does not require a consultation with a palliative care professional, and does not clearly outline what constitutes reasonably foreseeable death; and a bill that does not necessitate the tracking of living conditions and available treatment for those who choose MAID, nor a mandated review of the program within a year. Quite frankly, Canadians should be outraged.
I am disappointed this bill is being rushed through amid a pandemic because the Liberals chose to prorogue Parliament last summer and chose not to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada. I am appalled this bill requires fewer witnesses to end life than are required to execute a will. I am distressed that this bill does not address the medical professionals—
Results: 1 - 15 of 45 | Page: 1 of 3

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data