SoVote

Mar/28/22 11:38:06 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-230

Madam Speaker, the bill we are debating today has to do with protecting the freedom of conscience of health care professionals and practitioners when it comes to medical assistance in dying. I think we should base our debate on the approach that Quebec took on this matter back in 2010. Quebec studied this issue from 2010 to 2014. The debates were non-partisan. The process allowed for all points of view to be heard and compiled. The focus of the debate was human dignity. When talking about end-of-life care, we must not forget that the way to protect human dignity lies in freedom of choice. No one can claim to be acting in a patient's best interests if that patient is not allowed to make their own decisions. What is interesting about the Conservatives' bill is that they want the state to be less involved in the economy but more involved in our lives, especially when it comes to death, which is one of the intimate decisions a human being will make. It is not the state or Conservative members who are going to die in place of the individual, the person who is dying, the patient, so why are they trying to interfere in this decision? This bill is pointless, and I say this because subsection 241.2(9) already stipulates that no one can be compelled or forced to provide medical assistance in dying against their will. As I just mentioned, the Quebec legislation should guide us in our debate here today. Section 31 of the Quebec legislation stipulates that medical practitioners cannot be forced to participate directly or indirectly in MAID, and I quote: A physician practising in a centre operated by an institution who refuses a request for medical aid in dying for a reason not based on section 29 [which sets out all the conditions that a doctor must meet before deciding whether to provide medical assistance in dying] must, as soon as possible, notify the executive director of the institution or any other person designated by the executive director and forward the request form given to the physician, if that is the case, to the executive director or designated person. The executive director of the institution or designated person must then take the necessary steps to find, as soon as possible, another physician willing to deal with the request in accordance with section 29. This means that a patient who is dying and highly vulnerable should not be burdened with having to take the steps I just mentioned. The bill the Conservatives are introducing today would do just that. It would force these individuals to take those steps at the most vulnerable time of their lives, when they are dying or about to die. However, medical practitioners can refuse to participate directly or indirectly in MAID. As we heard during the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights' study of Bill C-7, some practitioners, citing freedom of conscience, are currently refusing to abide by the Collège des médecins du Québec's code of ethics and forward the request. In other words, they are ignoring the request, which they are not allowed to do. In Quebec, conscientious objection is defined as follows: “Health professionals must not ignore a request for medical aid in dying. However, a doctor may refuse to administer medical aid in dying because of his or her personal values. The doctor must notify, as soon as possible, the executive director of the institution”. That is the issue. The Conservatives have introduced a bill to add a provision to the Criminal Code that would make what they call intimidation in health care facilities an offence. This would be a situation where a health care professional dealing with a family supporting a dying patient—a father, a mother, a brother, a sister—offers end-of-life options without ever mentioning medical assistance in dying. That is the kind of scenario we are talking about. Quebec was a leader in this area and contributed to advancing the legislation, but there is still a lot of resistance on the ground when a patient requests medical assistance in dying. That can manifest in various ways. The surprising thing is that this resistance stands in stark contrast to what I consider the essence of Quebec's legislation, which was to integrate end-of-life care into the palliative care continuum. In the current debate, there is one side advocating for palliative care and another advocating for medical assistance in dying. Quebec's legislation did not fall into the trap of such unnecessary division. Palliative care should be accessible, and the continuum of palliative care can give rise to a request for medical assistance in dying. A request for MAID emerges when a patient is given the opportunity to make a free and informed choice. A person's dignity must not be defined by how they die, and it cannot be compromised because death is considered to be distasteful. To respect a human being is to respect their dignity, and that means respecting their independence and capacity for self-determination until their last breath. The law enshrines the principle of self-determination throughout our lives, especially when it comes to medical decisions. No one can interfere with my person without my free and informed consent. Why then, at the most intimate moment in my life, would the state interfere in my life and take away my right to self-determination? I can only make a free choice if the practitioner is able to offer me all the choices, including access to palliative care, palliative sedation, and medical assistance in dying. This is a decision that only a dying person can make. These types of bills and debates take us away from far nobler objectives. There is nothing new here to crow about; it was already set out in the legislation. I would like members to understand why the Bloc Québécois will oppose this bill. We oppose this bill because at present, in Quebec, some people requesting MAID in a hospital are not being admitted to a palliative care unit. It is shameful that people at the end of their lives must live their last moments in a place that is far from peaceful and far from what is recommended as appropriate for dying with dignity. Why oppose that? We must focus our efforts on having a continuum of care, working to ensure that palliative care is as available and accessible as possible in all forms, whether at home, in hospices, or elsewhere. A request for assisted death must be viewed not as a failure, but as a success in accompanying an individual towards death.

1136 words

All Topics

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Mar/28/22 11:48:38 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-230

Madam Speaker, I am pleased though a bit surprised to be speaking on Bill C-230. Less than a year ago, on May 27, 2021, we were in the House debating Bill C-268, the very same bill from the very same member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. While I am a bit in awe of the member's ability to place so highly in the random draw for Private Members' Business in two successive Parliaments, I am also at a bit of a loss to explain why the member would squander her luck on this bill. There are two reasons I say this. As MPs we get limited opportunities to place bills directly before the House. I had that opportunity in 2013, and I used it to put forward Bill C-279, which sought to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination in the Canadian human rights code and in the hate crime section of the Criminal Code. Though many thought it unlikely, the bill did pass the House with support from MPs from all parties. It took a lot of work to put together that coalition of MPs. While my bill followed a somewhat torturous path, there was always a path forward and it became law. I wonder why it is that having heard so clearly, in speeches less than a year ago, that there was limited, if any, support for this bill outside her own party, the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek has brought it back again. Since there is nothing to indicate any change of circumstances or any change of heart, this bill will go nowhere this time as well. Failing to bring forth a bill that might have some prospect for passing or reintroducing this bill instead of bringing forward a new bill presenting ideas not already debated here in the House leads me to call reintroducing this bill, at best, a missed opportunity. The second reason I have for declaring the reintroduction of this bill a lost opportunity has to do with the bill itself. This bill picks up a tiny portion of the extensive and important debates on medical assistance in dying that took place on Bill C-14 in Parliament in 2016 and again on C-7 in the last Parliament. It seeks to take one small and very debatable point and turn it into a wedge issue in the House. We are waiting for the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to get down to work on outstanding important and critical issues around medical assistance in dying, but as that committee has yet to get under way, I want to take this opportunity today to restate the principle that has guided New Democrats through these debates. We believe that medical assistance in dying is an important tool for helping to end unnecessary suffering for patients facing end-of-life issues and for avoiding the unnecessary suffering of their families, who have to accompany them on this journey. This is the reason New Democrats will always defend the right of access to information about MAID and access to the service for all those who qualify for assistance in dying and choose to proceed. In the debate on Bill C-7, many issues arose concerning the challenges Canadians face at the end of life, some of which Bill C-7 addressed directly and some which have not yet been addressed. Two important concerns were front and centre, and these, for me, were the most important. The first was to help alleviate unnecessary suffering by eliminating the waiting period, which was a cause of great concern for patients who feared loss of capacity before they could complete the waiting period and thus make them ineligible for medical assistance in dying and forced to consider suffering. The second was a change allowing a waiver of final consent. This is a provision I know quite well, personally, as a friend of mine chose to go earlier than she would have liked because of a brain tumour and her fear that she would lose capacity to consent at the last moment and, in doing so, have to continue making her family suffer. A second challenge was also debated in Bill C-7. How do we preserve as much autonomy as possible for Canadians who are dying? Most of the issues related to this still have to be dealt with at the special joint committee. This includes questions of advance directives, the question of access to MAID for those with mental illness and for mature minors, and whether protections for people with disabilities from being pressured to seek MAID are adequate. I remain frustrated with the delays in dealing with these very important issues. The bill before us is not one of those. A third challenge that came up in the debate on Bill C-7 was access to services at the end of life. We learned there are a great many gaps in services in our Canadian health care system for those who are facing death. There are gaps in diagnostic and treatment services depending on where one lives, whether it is a major city with excellent facilities or a rural and remote area. We learned of important gaps in palliative care. However, instead of addressing these challenges, the challenges of autonomy and the challenges of access to services, Bill C-230 is about something else altogether. What this bill would do is override a patient's right to access information about and to have access to legally provided medical services, based on the personal beliefs of a service provider. Let me put that in plain language. Let us suppose there are a variety of treatments available to a patient. It does not really matter in this case what they are. If a medical professional believes that one of them should not be available, this bill says there is no obligation on that professional to make sure patients find out all the options available to them. Professional organizations, like colleges of physicians and surgeons, and colleges of nurses, have found this to be unethical behaviour, so they require doctors, to varying degrees, to refer patients to someone who is supportive of those services and who is available to provide those services. This requirement to refer exists in its strictest form in Ontario as the right of patients to an effective referral, meaning a referral to a health care professional who is available, capable and willing to provide that service. This has been upheld by the courts as a reasonable compromise between the rights of patients' access to medical issues and the conscience rights of service providers. That is the main reason I cannot support this bill. If passed, it would result, on a very real and practical basis, in the denial of access to necessary health services for many Canadians. Many communities have a very limited number of doctors and if one of those doctors, or even more than one of those doctors, is unwilling to let their patients find out about medical assistance in dying, then we are condemning those Canadians to suffer at the end of life in ways that other Canadians would not have to suffer. No health care professionals are in fact required by law to participate, and that is why I find titling this bill “intimidation of health care professionals” disingenuous at best. Is requiring a referral actually participation in medical assistance in dying? Clearly it is not, and trying to torque a requirement to provide information into participation helps no one understand the real issues of conscience involved in medical assistance in dying. An equally important reason for opposing this bill is the dangerous precedent that this bill would set. Its role as a potentially precedent-setting bill has already been noted by anti-choice advocates who have been vocal in their support for this bill. They recognize that it would provide a precedent for denying referrals for access to contraception and abortion services, and I want to point out that denials of service and denials of information are very real in our existing Canadian medical care system. This bill would also be a very bad precedent for current attempts to deny transgender minors the counselling and medical services they need to affirm who they are. Without access to services that others may think are inappropriate, this will leave families with trans minors struggling to find the information and support that their kids really need. If this kind of precedent is allowed, medical professionals would not have to provide a referral to someone who would be providing a medically necessary service. As I approach the end of my comments today, I cannot end without mentioning yet another unfortunate precedent set in this bill, and that is its use of inflammatory language. I have no doubt, as I said in my question to the sponsor of this bill, of her personal convictions and their strength. However, as sincere as they may be, the language used in this bill conjures up a spectre of the use of violence to intimidate medical professionals, something of which there is absolutely no evidence of happening in Canada. Invoking the spectre of violent intimidation is certainly not conducive to an informed debate on the real issues that are in question here. I will close my comments today by restating that, on principle, New Democrats are opposed to any legislation that would limit access to Canadians seeking information about or the service of medical assistance in dying. No matter how strong the beliefs others may hold, this right exists to access medically necessary services. There is no doubt that the end of life is a difficult moment for all families, and medical assistance in dying, I still believe, is an important way of ending unnecessary suffering both for patients and families at the end of life. I would not like to see anyone denied access to information they need to make a choice that protects their own autonomy of how their lives end. At this point, let me salute the health care professionals who assist patients and their families through this very difficult process. Once again, I lament the tendency of not just this member but, indeed, many Conservative members of the House to use private member's bills for scoring political points and sharpening divisions in the House— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Randall Garrison: —instead of looking for opportunities to work together for the common good of Canadians.

1769 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/28/22 11:58:19 a.m.
Watch

Before I go to the next speaker, I want to remind members to afford the respect of the House to others when members have the floor. It is really important to have that respect. I am sure that members do not want to be interrupted when they are speaking. Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

59 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Mar/28/22 11:58:41 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-230

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of Bill C-230, the protection of freedom of conscience act, introduced by my friend, the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. The bill before us is much-needed legislation to protect the charter rights of medical professionals who conscientiously object to providing or otherwise participating in medical assistance in dying. I want to commend the member for her steadfast leadership in championing conscience rights and for bringing this bill back to the House, as she introduced a similar bill that died on the Order Paper in the last Parliament. Medical assistance in dying raises profound legal, moral and ethical questions. The trial judge in the Carter decision, which struck down the Criminal Code prohibition against physician-assisted death, stated, “The evidence shows that thoughtful and well-motivated people can and have come to different conclusions about whether physician-assisted death can be ethically justifiable.” This is true of patients, and it is true of medical professionals. Medical professionals have a duty to do what is in the best interest of their patients and to provide the best possible advice based upon their judgment and experience, all of which are grounded on moral and professional convictions. In the case of medical assistance in dying, there are professional, moral and ethical considerations of the highest weight. In the Carter decision, the Supreme Court predicated its decision on two things: a willing patient and, as importantly, a willing physician. At paragraph 132 of the Carter decision, the court said that nothing in its pronouncement would compel medical professionals to participate in MAID. The court went further in stating that, “However, we note...in addressing the topic of physician participation...that a physician’s decision to participate in assisted dying is a matter of conscience and, in some cases, of religious belief.” In other words, again, it requires a willing patient and a willing physician. Now, there are those who would say that this legislation is redundant, that it is not needed, and that in terms of medical assistance in dying, conscience rights of medical professionals are already protected. They would point to the pronouncement in Carter. They might also cite Bill C-14, which includes a preamble that expressly recognizes conscience rights as well as a “for greater certainty” clause in the Criminal Code, which simply provides that “for greater certainty, nothing in this section compels an individual” to provide MAID. While the intention of Parliament was to protect the conscience rights of medical professionals when Bill C-14 was debated and passed—and I was there for, and actively participated in, that debate and the study of that bill at committee—in practice, conscience protections and the rights of medical professionals are not being respected across Canada. There is a gap, and that is why, when Bill C-7 was studied at the justice committee, we heard from medical professionals who expressed serious concerns about pressure and coercion in providing MAID. Indeed, the Ontario Medical Association wrote to our committee and specifically called on the committee to amend Bill C-7 to provide greater conscience protections for medical professionals, given that the “for greater certainty” clause, although better than nothing, simply does not have teeth. It is not enforceable. In that context, while the Criminal Code does not compel a medical professional to provide MAID, there is nothing in the Criminal Code that specifically protects medical professionals when they are pressured or coerced to provide MAID. This bill addresses that gap and would close it by establishing two targeted offences; namely, it would make it an offence to intimidate or coerce a medical professional with regard to providing or participating in MAID, and secondly, it would make it an offence to dismiss or refuse to hire a medical professional solely on the grounds that they object to participating in MAID. While this legislation would protect the rights of medical professionals, it must also be emphasized that this bill would just as much protect the rights of patients. The bill would protect the rights of patients by protecting the physician-patient relationship. It would do so by safeguarding the ability of medical professionals to provide their best advice and judgment, free of pressure and free of coercion, to a patient who is considering medical assistance in dying. It would protect patients by protecting their right to a second opinion. There can be no second opinion, or at least a guarantee of a second opinion, in the face of coercion or pressure to provide medical assistance in dying. There can be no second opinion when the only choice offered to a patient is medical assistance in dying as a result of pressure and coercion. The need to safeguard the patient-physican relationship, which this bill works toward achieving, is all the more needed in the face of the radical expansion of medical assistance in dying in Canada with the passage of Bill C-7, which removes critical safeguards, including the criterion that death be reasonably foreseeable and opens the door to medical assistance in dying for persons who are suffering solely from a mental illness, even though it is never possible to predict when someone who is suffering from mental illness can get better. It is never possible to predict irremediability in the case of a solely mental illness. As a result of the removal of those critical safeguards, vulnerable patients are put at greater risk. When the conscience rights of medical professionals to exercise their best judgment are protected free of intimidation and coercion, the rights of patients are equally protected. This is a timely, targeted and necessary piece of legislation that would protect the rights of medical professionals and their charter rights and the rights of patients. I urge its passage.

981 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/28/22 12:08:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-230

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

29 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Mar/28/22 12:09:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, historically, the powers that be have always used crises as an opportunity to build an increasingly unitary government and spread its tentacles. The so-called Canadian Confederation has always been predatory and oppressive. This was true after the Patriotes rebellion of 1837 and 1838 was quashed by the Act of Union, which was sanctioned following the recommendation of the fundamentally racist Durham report. It was true after the world wars, when taxes that had officially been called temporary became permanent. It was also true after the 1980 referendum on sovereignty-association, with the unilateral repatriation of the Constitution, which Quebec still has not signed. It was true after the 1995 referendum, when the government unilaterally cut provincial transfers. I remind members that Ottawa used its new surpluses to create a plethora of programs, while Quebec was forced to slash funding for public services. It would have been really naive of us to believe that the government would not use the COVID‑19 crisis to spread its tentacles into new areas it had no reason to be in. Budget 2021 gave us a taste of that by setting up a structure of federal intervention in areas under provincial jurisdiction. The Liberal-NDP alliance, the new ultracentralist coalition in power, will be more successful than ever at cloaking its subjugating and imperious ambitions in progressive language. The 1% tax on underused housing owned by foreign developers proposed in Bill C-8 is a prime example of that. I want to make one thing clear. This is a good idea in and of itself. I had the opportunity to talk about it a few weeks ago, and I said that it is a good idea on paper, in principle, because it seeks to prevent speculators from buying and selling based on the ups and downs of the market. There is no doubt that real estate speculation is a real problem right now, given that the housing situation is on the brink of disaster. It should be noted, however, that Ottawa has been shirking its responsibility to provide appropriate funding for the construction of social and affordable housing since the 1990s and that those cuts deprived Quebec of 80,000 housing units. That little dig at the federal government aside, the tax on real estate speculation is a good measure, even if it is a very minor one. However, just because an idea has the potential to address a legitimate problem does not mean that the federal government should violate Quebec's sovereignty and interfere in its jurisdictions. That is why we are calling this tax the “invasion tax”. On February 17, 2022, constitutional expert Patrick Taillon explained to the Standing Committee on Finance that this idea comes with some serious negative consequences. The ultimate goal of this so-called invasion tax is to set some parameters surrounding the right to housing, which is an explicit and exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, and the government wants to do so without any prior consultation or agreement with the provinces. I remind members that successive governments in Ottawa have boasted about engaging in co-operative federalism, which is a chimera. The concept of co-operative federalism has taken on several names over the years, but it is actually asymmetrical or open federalism. This would not be my choice, as I would opt for independence over unco-operative federalism. This is a particularly centralizing direction for federalism. Mr. Taillon explained that if this legislation is meant to regulate the right to housing, then it is likely unconstitutional. The pith of the bill goes beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament; it is a provincial jurisdiction. Ottawa used its usual creativity to try to find a way around the division of powers that it has an obligation to respect, so this is an attempt to disguise a regulatory measure that falls under Quebec's jurisdiction as a tax measure. This is the very first time that Ottawa has dared to interfere in the area of property taxes by seeking to penalize non-resident, non-Canadian second home owners. If this bill is directly related to the housing act, then we must conclude that it is unconstitutional. It goes without saying that no one here is challenging the government's right to impose new taxes. If the primary goal is not to generate revenue but instead to limit or discourage certain behaviours related to real estate speculation, then this is more of a regulatory measure than a new tax, and it must be associated with an area of jurisdiction, in this case housing, which has always been governed by the provinces. Without an agreement with Quebec and the provinces or their collaboration, a federal property tax would compromise the fiscal balance, which I would politely describe as already being fragile. Why would we let Ottawa borrow a tax tool that is not its own from the various local authorities, namely the municipalities and school boards, that need this tool themselves? That imbalance will only grow in the coming years, especially given rising health care costs that Ottawa is still refusing to finance appropriately. It is important to emphasize that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's Fiscal Sustainability Report, which was released in June 2021, confirmed that the federal government still has financial flexibility, in contrast to the provinces, which have none and are in fact facing long-term viability problems. This really is not the time to be interfering in their business. History has made it very clear that, once Ottawa gets its hands on tax fields, it never lets go. Been there, done that. Take corporate income tax, for example, which was a supposedly temporary measure brought in after the First World War, or personal income tax, another supposedly temporary measure brought in after the Second World War. This property tax sets a dangerous precedent because Ottawa will inevitably have to set up various delegation of authority tools and infrastructure to manage it. This tax does not work like other federal taxes, so it will require new systems. As Mr. Taillon explained, once the mechanism to administer property tax is in place, it will be hard for Ottawa to resist the urge to look for more good ideas to fill that space. Given the new ultracentralist coalition in power, I think I am entitled to feel that this will inevitably hurt the provinces, municipalities and school boards. My political party proposed a single amendment to address this issue. We tried to find a compromise by proposing that the property tax measures apply only if the province agrees. That would just make sense, but unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois's amendment was deemed out of order by the Liberal committee chair, without even being debated. That is too bad. In conclusion, taxation powers are directly connected to political sovereignty. In usurping an exclusive jurisdiction of the Quebec state, the federal regime is becoming more and more oppressive and Quebec is losing its agency and its power. Independence has its price, to be sure, but dependence is even more costly. This invasion tax is yet more evidence of that.

1199 words

All Topics

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)

Mar/28/22 12:18:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about similar worries that I have about the continued centralization of government, and he talked about housing, which I am hearing a lot about in my community. The Conservatives have a solution: Motion No. 54. It is asking the federal government to abandon its failed first-time homebuyer initiative, which has only helped 15% of its target. I wonder what the member thinks about supporting that motion. Also, what is he hearing from young people in his community? I am hearing that young people are starting to give up on the dream of home ownership. Could the member please comment on this important initiative?

109 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Mar/28/22 12:19:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, needless to say, the housing system is in crisis. My colleague and I agree that there is a problem and that the solution being proposed is not the right way to go. However, I think our political parties disagree on whether a real estate speculation tax should be imposed. I personally am in favour of this principle, but I simply think it was introduced in the wrong legislature. I think my colleague also agrees with me on centralization. However, our party differs from the Conservatives on another point. The Bloc believes that funding for housing needs to be completely overhauled so that it is not just private developers who benefit, but also community organizations, non-profit organizations and housing co-operatives, because they are the ones that know the real needs. I also want to point out that the funding still needs to be rolled out. Ideally, that money would be sent to Quebec, and Quebec would take care of it. However, the federal government's withdrawal has deprived Quebec of roughly 80,000 housing units since the 1990s. As long as we pay taxes to Ottawa, we have a right to expect a fair return on our investment.

201 words

All Topics

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Mar/28/22 12:20:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about jurisdiction. I wonder if he is aware that the Supreme Court of Canada has declared that health care is shared jurisdiction in this country. I wonder if he is aware that the words “health care” do not appear in the Constitution at all. I wonder if he is aware that the only power given to the provinces in our Constitution is the establishment and maintenance of hospitals. Finally, I wonder if he is aware that the Canadian health care system, which Quebeckers and all Canadians treasure so much, would not exist without federal legislation that established five conditions for the transfers of funds. This is the system that he and the Bloc Québécois want more money for from the federal government. Is he aware that this system is dependent on federal jurisdiction, which ties the money to conditions?

152 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Mar/28/22 12:21:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I am perfectly aware. There is a lot to read and study in the Constitution, which Quebec never signed. It is also clear that delivering health care is a provincial responsibility, that the legislation governing health transfers to which my colleague referred is not being respected and that adequate funding is not being provided. I thank my colleague for asking me whether I am aware of all this. My answer is yes, of course.

76 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/28/22 12:22:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I want to add to my New Democratic colleague's thoughts. Canadians, as a whole, recognize and want to see a national government that truly cares, provides for them and is there in a tangible way with regard to health care. That is one of the reasons we have been advocating for national health care standards. Would the member not recognize that even people in Quebec, along with other Canadians in all regions of the country, want to see a national government play a role in long-term health care and mental health? Would he at least acknowledge that as a fact?

104 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Mar/28/22 12:23:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, Quebec has no lessons to learn about establishing a public and universal system. It has been a pioneer in the field. The system is poorly funded, actually underfunded. That is the problem. That being said, if the rest of Canada is prepared to live with Canada-wide standards or programs and the provinces agree, then let it be on condition that there is always a right to opt out with full compensation, no matter the reason. Accordingly, a province that disagrees, like Quebec, should be able to opt out, take the money, and say that it will adjust its programs appropriately, the way it wants to do it.

110 words

All Topics

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

Mar/28/22 12:23:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure, as always, to rise in the House to represent what I feel are the views in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, in eastern Ontario, in response to the government's economic plan. Since it tabled this legislation, which we have been debating over the last couple months, last week's circumstance of the surprise but unsurprising deal between the NDP and the Liberals blew up the fiscal framework, several parts of which are in the bill and are going to be in subsequent budgets over the course of the next couple of years. This specific piece of legislation has $70 billion in new inflationary spending. One thing I say to constituents very often when we are talking about support for and the funding of various programs is that it is very easy to say that we are going to fund programs A, B, C and D. That is the motherhood and apple pie of our job. The difficult part, which I believe Canadians are paying more attention to, is the financial situation and stability that our country faces. Every single dollar in this bill, if not every single part of it, is new debt and deficit to our Canadian treasury. Canadians hear the statistic, as confirmed in the bill, that our national debt is now $1.2 trillion and growing, and one of the things we hear about is ideas. Parliament is for proposing ideas, and we are all here to make life better for Canadians. However, like in many of these bills, discussions and debates, putting the paid-for aspects on the Canadian credit card, for lack of a better term, is not talked about by the NDP and Liberal deal. I have to laugh as I say that. As an aside, we ask if it is a coalition, an agreement, a friendship, a pact or a Kumbaya. Whatever it is, there is a framework and deal when it comes to the fiscal policy of this country over the course of the next few years. I would argue that from a technical perspective, the parties have a right in Parliament to come up with this agreement. I will not deny that. However, I think there is an ethical challenge here in terms of the openness and transparency of it. Millions of people voted for the NDP and did not vote to give the Liberal government, when it comes to committee or other measures, a free pass. Alternatively, there are many people who voted for Liberal candidates across the country who did not agree, on top of already having a deficit, to billions and billions of dollars of additional money. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who does great work, has had a couple of great reports that I think show a few things when it comes to the fiscal framework proposed by the government and NDP team. When it comes to the proposed stimulus spending, the PBO said, “It appears to me that the rationale for the additional spending initially set aside as ‘stimulus’ no longer exists.” He also said, “Yes, they can” in response to being asked if government deficits can contribute to inflation. Given the bigger picture here when we look at the economic situation and this economic bill, there is a clear contrast between us on the opposition side as Conservatives and this proposed bill from the Liberals and the NDP. There are a few things I want to talk about in my comments today that provide the contrast. Other ideas are better solutions for moving this country forward, getting back to normalcy, getting our fiscal house in order and addressing many of the growing challenges and situations I am hearing about in my riding and beyond. Housing is an example. I have spoken nearly every time I have risen in the House for the past couple of months about the growing crisis, not only in the housing market but in the rental market in the city of Cornwall, the united counties of SDG and parts of Akwesasne as well. That is a microcosm of what is happening nationally. What is in this legislation is not a ban on foreign buyers, which was promised. We believe they should be banned for two years. That could help cool the market, particularly in larger cities. One of the other things we talked about, and a new motion coming up is proposing ideas on it, is the government's proposed fiscal policy when it comes to housing and the first-time homebuyer shared equity program. It has been an abject failure, number one because of the participation numbers in it. The idea that the government would help give shared equity to Canadians to buy their homes may be admirable at face value to some, but all that is going to do is further inflate an already expensive housing market. If we provide an extra $100,000 or $200,000 to help people afford a home, all that will do is to let sellers know, when there are 13 or 14 people bidding on a house in the city of Cornwall, that they have an extra $100,000 or $200,000 more in leverage to inflate the market. This is more government debt and more government printing. It is not actually lowering prices and making home ownership more affordable. It is increasing debt and increasing prices and not addressing the fundamental aspect. I have to call out another slap to Canadians, which is the bonuses that were given at the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which were released a few weeks ago. CMHC is an organization that has a literal mandate to make sure Canadians have housing affordability. I do not need to summarize where we are with that in this country. Housing prices, nationally, have doubled. In our riding, housing prices are over $400,000. That has doubled in the past five years of this housing crisis. The very benchmark of the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation is to make housing affordable. The absolute opposite has happened. For more people, the dream of home ownership and affordability is out the window, but CMHC, the Liberal minister responsible for housing and the Liberal government gave $40 million in bonuses to employees at the organization. That is a slap in the face to the 30-year-old who is living in their parent's basement because they cannot afford their dream of home ownership and who cannot afford rent because we do not have supply. I do not know what shows more of the contrast in what we are doing. The cost of living and inflation is at a 30-year high, the highest in nearly my entire lifetime of 34 years. At the rate we are going, when we get there, we will set another record in the coming months. When we talk about contrast, I say each time that our job as opposition is to hold the government to account on what they have proposed but also to put our money where our mouth is. If we were on the other side of the aisle, since this is Parliament and we can propose ideas, what would we do? I have to say, I have been very proud of my Conservative colleagues over the course of the last couple of weeks. They have highlighted a few issues that, I believe, provide a direct contrast with the plans proposed by the Liberals and the NDP. First of all, we need to get opened back up. We need to end federal mandates, vaccine mandates and travel requirements. We have heard from employers, and we have heard from the travel and tourism industry, that they are very nervous about the year ahead. Based on where the science is at, not where it was two years ago, but here today at the end of March 2022, we can lift those mandates and get our country opened up. We can be back for business. We can be welcoming international visitors safely and smartly and get our economic engine firing at 100% again. We lost that battle. We proposed that idea and, again, the Liberal and NDP coalition, friendship, team, pack or whatever we call them, did not agree with that. Last week in our opposition day motion, which was one of the days last week, when we had the debate and then the vote right afterwards, was something we tried to put on record and did get on record. Unfortunately we were unsuccessful, again because of the other parties, but we talked about the high price of gas and many other goods in the country. There are two things here. Number one is that we asked for a break on GST on fuel. I came into Ottawa last night from the riding. I stopped in Monkland to fill up with gas. It was over $1.70 a litre. I know there are a lot of people in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry who have to drive to work. There is not a subway or LRT option in Monkland or Iroquois or Crysler. I do not think there is one coming anytime soon. Driving a car to get to work or to go to hockey practice is essential when living in a rural area. We called for a gas tax break. It was voted down. It would not solve the affordability problem, but it could have given some tax relief at a time when Canadians truly need it. The other problem we have to confront, which the government is not doing through their economic policies, is that the carbon tax is set to increase again later this week. We are saying that, if we are not going to give a break to Canadians at the pumps when prices are high, at least do not increase taxes on everybody on April 1. That was declined. In a democracy, there are going to be contrasts. Our contrast is quite clear. We understand the cost of living. We understand the need for relief for Canadians. When it comes to housing, we have a fundamentally different approach. For those reasons, again, I do not support the economic and fiscal update tabled by the government. I have a feeling that with the new deal between the Liberals and the NDP, I do not see ourselves doing so in the coming years either. We will see, here on the floor of the House of Commons, further constructive ideas from Conservatives.

1763 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Mar/28/22 12:34:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I have nothing against the idea of taxing vacant property, especially foreign-owned property, as the underused housing tax proposes, since that helps calm the overheated market. However, this is the first time the federal government is so directly and so heavily encroaching on provincial jurisdictions—and even municipal ones, in this case. Does my colleague not believe that instead of encroaching so blatantly on the jurisdictions of other levels of government, the government should instead sit down with the main stakeholders and determine the best way the federal level can help in this particular file?

99 words

All Topics

Mr. Eric Duncan

Mar/28/22 12:35:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for his question and his intervention. In this section, there is a 1% tax on vacated homes. I would use as an example, in the province of Quebec, perhaps the city of Montreal, where housing prices are in the millions of dollars. With no disrespect to the 1%, that could be into the tens of thousands of dollars. I would argue that it does not disincentivize some people, if they are those who can afford to spend $3 million or $4 million to buy a home and leave it vacant. We have asked at different committees what that correlation would actually do to cool the market. It remains to be seen. What I will offer is an alternative, and I will agree with my colleague. Working with provinces and municipalities, we need to look at banning foreign buyers who are in it for profit and investment from getting into the system. I believe that tool, which is not included, could actually cool the market more than what is being proposed in this legislation.

187 words

All Topics

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Mar/28/22 12:36:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I want to talk a bit about the gas tax situation that my colleague referred to. It is a very serious one. First of all, one of the things that this chamber did do was pass a petroleum monitoring agency. That was passed in this chamber, and it was actually funded. After that, the Harper administration then cancelled it. We had a transparent, independent body to enforce it, similar to what they have in the United States where we actually see rack pricing announced every single week. Therefore, they can track the price of refinement to the pump. That was one of the big problems about the proposed Conservative motion. There was no guarantee that this would be passed on to consumers. Why did the Conservatives get rid of the petroleum monitoring agency? Why do we have less transparency and accountability for gas pricing than our American neighbours, who enjoy such a privileged system versus us here, especially when many of the Conservatives want to have some type of similar standard regulation?

174 words

All Topics

Mr. Eric Duncan

Mar/28/22 12:37:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I will say two points on that. Number one, it is one thing to monitor and track pricing, pricing changes and the correlations between them. There is a difference between that and our proposal, which would have lowered the price and taken the GST off fuel as an option, particularly when prices at the pumps are very high. It would have been a tangible, direct way to give back. That is number one in terms of providing relief. The second item I would argue, and it is our proposal, is to not increase taxes. They do not need tracking or monitoring to know that on April 1 the carbon tax is going to go up again, and it will go up every April 1. We are saying we can pause that. We could stop that increase. The Liberals and the NDP have the opportunity to not increase taxes on April 1. We could talk about speculation and markets and look at observing. We could talk about concrete ways we can actually lower the cost of living and the price of fuel for Canadians during these challenging times.

189 words

All Topics

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)

Mar/28/22 12:38:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and talk about the priorities of Oshawa. I get to speak to Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update. However, first I want to say that we are living in unprecedented times. Last Thursday, I was in Oshawa at the 401 rally for Ukraine. Who would have thought that, in our lifetime, we would be seeing a war in Europe? Certainly our thoughts and prayers are with our friends and families in the Ukrainian community, in Ukraine, Canada and Oshawa. We have more uncertainty with our supply chains, our food, our energy, and it amplifies Canada's weaknesses and lost opportunities, especially in Canada's traditional strengths in energy and food supply. Who would have thought if we had made different decisions, Europe's position could be different right now, but we did not make those positive decisions. We have more uncertainty. Who would have thought that the Canadian Prime Minister last week was admonished and condemned in Brussels at the European Parliament for headlines around the world? The Prime Minister was called out for engaging in a dictatorship of the worst kind by EU parliamentarians, who warned us about the path of our country and how the Prime Minister handled the truckers in the Emergencies Act. We have more uncertainty. Who would have thought that we would have this NDP-Liberal coalition to deal with the economic crisis, a deal that really puts fear into the hearts of Canadian taxpayers? That brings me to my speech today and why I cannot support the bill. It does not address the needs and priorities of Oshawa. The bill has seven parts, and none of these parts addresses the needs of Oshawa, but what does it do? It increases spending by more than $71 billion, and that was before the NDP-Liberal secret deal. It means $71 billion more of inflation. Now our national debt is $1.2 trillion. Who would have thought? Now the NDP-Liberal government is asking for another blank cheque, and frankly, we know this is going to pass because the NDP, as the Prime Minister says, are now going to be supporting “Justinflation”. I would say they are going to be supporting just incompetent spending. Oshawa's priorities are housing, our seniors and opioids. My office is right across the street from the Back Door Mission, a mission that helps Oshawa's most vulnerable. It has ballooned. We see young people who cannot afford rent and housing, and seniors who cannot afford groceries and gas. In Canada, with all our natural resources in energy, who would have thought that gas would be up 33%, and natural gas and heating would be up 19%? Who would have thought an average family of four would be spending $1,000 more per year this year for groceries? The price of chicken is up 2%. Beef is up 11.9%. Bacon is up 19.1%, and bread is up 5%. Who would have thought in Canada, one of the most blessed countries in the world, under the Liberal government, Canadians cannot even afford the basic necessities. Last week I spoke to a constituent whose name is George. He needs affordable housing. He is paying $875 per month for an attic apartment, but he is over six feet tall. He has to hunch all day to get around his apartment, and he cannot afford anything more than $600 per month. He is on disability, but he cannot find anything else. There is no surprise when the Liberals took office in 2015, the price of a house was $435,000. Now it is $810,000. Who would have thought in Oshawa the average house price would be over $1 million? It is up 25% since last year. How can a young person ever afford a home? How can a senior afford to stay in their home? Who would have thought that in Canada, with more land than almost any other country in the world, housing would be so far out of reach for young people? The Liberals just are not listening. As the previous speaker said, Conservatives are offering solutions. Motion No. 54 was for the Liberals to abandon their failed first-time home buying initiative. We are also launching a housing task force to find solutions, but the country is going in the wrong direction. How are the Liberals going to pay for all this unaccounted spending? The Liberals and the NDP only know one way and that is to increase taxing. With the NDP deal, who are the rich in Canada? Who would have thought the average home would be worth over a million dollars? According to a CMHC report, the government is suggesting a new tax on homes worth $1 million to $1.5 million. Surprise, surprise. That would be a 0.2% tax per year. On a home worth over $2 million, it would be 1% per year, which on $2 million would be $20,000 more in taxes. For the average homeowner in Oshawa, that would be $2,097 per year or $174 per month in new taxes. How can they afford that? According to Bloomberg, Canada has the second most inflated housing bubble in the world. Canadian families must spend two-thirds of their gross monthly paycheques for an average home in Toronto or Vancouver. Who would have thought that Demographia would calculate Toronto as the fifth and Vancouver as the second most unaffordable market in the world? The federal government could do something about it. It has jurisdiction for banking rules, mortgage insurance, money laundering and monetary policy. Unfortunately, it is not moving ahead with solutions. It does not want to do anything. It is the party of the WE and SNC-Lavalin scandals. Do members remember Jody Wilson-Raybould, Jane Philpott and the billionaire's island? Throughout my speech, members have heard me say, “Who would have thought”, a few times. Who would have thought the current Liberal government could do so much damage in such a short period of time? That is what I am trying to answer, because Conservatives have warned Canadians about this since day one of the current Liberal government. Do members remember the promise on day one of only small deficits and balanced budgets by year four? The Liberals never came close to balancing a budget, even before COVID‑19. They never even intended to. During the election, the Prime Minister admitted that he does not pay attention to monetary policy and does not even think about it. He likely does not even understand it. What he does understand is modern monetary theory and woke economics: spending forever and printing money forever. This shows no respect for the taxpayer, for the savings of hard-working Canadians, for young people trying to get ahead or for the Canadian dream of home ownership. Conservatives warned that electing a PM who admires the basic dictatorship of China would be a problem for our democracy. Members should just look at the mandates. They should look at the truckers and the Emergency Act. He is budgeting $1.5—

1209 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/28/22 12:46:09 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry. I have a point of order from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

18 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Mar/28/22 12:46:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I know that it is the custom of the Speaker to allow members to not stick to a topic slavishly, in this case Bill C-8, but I wonder if the hon. member will talk about it.

39 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 47