44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 5, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity today to speak to this legislation. I would like to start by recognizing the sponsors of the bill, the Hon. Senator Ataullahjan from the other House and our member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, for the leadership that they have shown on this important issue. I want to thank them, and it is encouraging to see a bill brought forward that can be supported across all party lines and in both Houses. I am excited to see this legislation come to fruition.
I will begin with how we view the human body, and the dignity and worth that we assign to that human body. My faith teaches me that every human being is created in the image of God and that there is sanctity and a sacredness to human life, including the physical body. That is why, unlike so many other ancient civilizations or religions, those who follow and have followed Christianity, Judaism or Islam have historically practised burial rather than cremation. There is the belief that, even after death, the human body remains important. Christianity and even some branches of Judaism teach that the body will one day be resurrected and transformed. As such, the body is of value and must be treated with care and respect, even after death.
If the human body is viewed as important, worthy of care and dignity, and sacred even in death, how much more should it be treated as sacrosanct while the human person is alive? Even those who reject the tenets of the three Abrahamic faiths would agree that the body after death should be treated with dignity. In fact, here in Canada we have laws that relate specifically to the handling of a human body after death. Section 182 of the Criminal Code of Canada makes it a criminal offence to improperly or indecently interfere with or offer any indignity to a dead human body, and there are similar laws around the globe. Why? It is because as humans we recognize there is a sacredness to humanity, including the physical body. Again, if treated with such dignity and reverence after death, how much more so while still alive?
For those who prefer a more humanistic argument, I would point the House toward Immanuel Kant and his piece, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, in which he casts the innate dignity of every human being as a categorical imperative. If we follow Kant, we must recognize that when a human organ becomes a commodity, a monetary value is placed on that organ. By assigning a monetary value to the organ, we essentially assign a monetary value to the individual who provided it. I am quite confident that we all agree with Kant, in this aspect, that putting a price on any part of a human being violates his or her intrinsic dignity.
Moreover, the removal of organs by force, under coercion or with consent, violates another Kantian principle: that of bodily autonomy. We hear a lot about bodily autonomy. We hear very different perspectives on what that entails, but there is a near-universal belief, at least in the western democracies, that what happens in an individual's body should be the sole purview of that individual or, in the case of young children, of their parents. Sadly, there are still individuals, criminal organizations and even some governments who refuse to respect the sanctity of the body.
No country officially endorses the practice of organ trafficking, but many turn a blind eye to this dehumanizing and often dangerous practice. In some cases, individuals, often those who live in poverty, sell their organs. In others, organs are obtained without the consent of a donor. An example of this would be what is happening in China with political prisoners, particularly people of faith. Again and again we have raised the plight of the Uighurs, practitioners of Falun Gong and Christians.
There have been many petitions presented in this House to that effect, with respect to individual groups who have been persecuted by China's brutal regime. Organ harvesting of these religious minorities by China is well documented. Typically, these extractions and the transplants themselves take place outside of national medical systems, so even assuming the donor is kept alive, which is never a guarantee, there is a high risk associated with the extraction and implantation of these organs, and as such these practices violate the sanctity and dignity of the human person. Therefore, we can all agree that human life is precious, and the body and the organs therein are worthy of the protection this legislation seeks to provide.
I am pleased that we are standing up for the value of human life. I wish we would also have the courage to show a similar concern and do what the Supreme Court of Canada instructed Parliament to do three decades ago, and finally enact legal protection for the preborn child in the womb. It is time we acted.
I am in favour of the bill's crackdown on foreign nationals who have been involved in organ trafficking attempting to come to Canada. I think that is good. It is high time that we crack down on who is allowed to come to Canada and who is not. However, I think that we need to be careful to differentiate between those who have been involved as traffickers and those who the traffickers may have exploited. If an individual has been involved in trafficking proper, that is, if they have facilitated or received monetary benefit from facilitating the illegal trafficking of organs, like those who traffic in drugs or slaves, that individual should not be admissible to Canada.
As an aside, I think it is reprehensible and hypocritical that the current government, even though it is supporting the legislation, also brought forward Bill C-75, which lowered the penalties for those involved in profiting from human trafficking. It is frankly absurd, and I hope some of the members on the opposite side see the disconnect, but any foreign nationals who traffic or profit from trafficking in human organs should not be admissible to Canada.
That said, as I read this legislation, I think that there should be a clear enough differentiation between traffickers and those who have willingly donated their own organs.
I am also a bit concerned about the first part of proposed subsection 4.2, where it says, “a person who commits an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under section 240.?1 is deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada”. As far as it relates to this piece of legislation, I think it is good, but I understand and I have to admit that I do struggle a little with that portion for a couple of reasons. The first is that other countries are not Canada, and every country around the globe has its own laws and legal systems. In the same way that we would expect those who come to Canada to respect our laws, we also need to be willing to respect the laws of other countries.
I know there are good counter-arguments to that point. Many of them are excellent reasonable arguments, but I think that something needs to be said where we respect other jurisdictions.
I would like to reiterate again that I am happy we are having this discussion. I would like to see that handful of concerns addressed, but overall I am pleased to be supporting this legislation. Our party is pleased to support it.
I want to again thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and Senator Ataullahjan for their hard work on this file. I am looking forward to supporting it.
1302 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/22 3:27:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I too want to present a petition signed by many petitioners. They are expressing concern that Louis Roy from the Quebec college of physicians has recommended expanding euthanasia to include babies from birth to the age of one year who are less than perfect. Recently, the Quebec college of physicians sent another witness to AMAD committee to double down, claiming further that this is not a moral issue and that Canadians have moved on.
The killing of children is always wrong. These petitioners want to make sure that the House blocks every attempt at legalizing the killing of children.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure and honour to rise in the House and share my views on this fiscal budget update and bring forward the views of the constituents of Provencher.
As our leader and many others have articulated here today, the Conservatives had two very simple conditions to gain our support for this fiscal economic update: no new taxes and no new spending. These were two very simple and reasonable requests. To my colleagues who disagree, I note that one of the few fiscal details contained in the minister's speech was that government revenues have increased by $40 billion, twice what the deficit was in 2019. That does not sound like the government should be hurting for cash, and if it is, it would be as a result of overspending.
That number 40 rings a bell: 40% of the COVID money spent was not spent on COVID but on everything else. That is $200 billion the government did not need to spend but chose to spend. That $200 billion is now driving the inflation that is crippling Canadians and driving up the cost of everything from food to fuel to home heating. Rather than providing real relief by reducing taxes, the government wants to smack Canadians one more time with even more new taxes: taxes on EI and CPP, the tripling of the carbon tax and new taxes on fuel, costing families an additional $1,200 per year.
All Canadian families are struggling to buy groceries for their kids and heat their homes. It is wintertime and it is cold out there. In my province, it will go down to -30°C tonight. Given the current plight of Canadian families and the government's direct responsibility for the current inflation and the cost of living, this was not an unreasonable demand we had.
It is likewise for the no new spending. To be clear, we are not saying that the government cannot spend money on anything and that it should freeze all spending. What we are saying is that if it is going to spend money in a new area, it has to look for a cost saving somewhere else. It is quite simple. If the Liberals wants a new program, they should look for a cost saving. They have increased the size of government by 30%. Surely, there has to be some savings to be found there somewhere.
Instead, they continue to spend. They continue to add to the size and cost of government. Every time they add to the cost of government, they need to tax, borrow or print money, which is what caused the state of inflation we are now in and what caused the cost of living crisis in the first place, just as we said it would.
The Liberals laughed at us. They rolled their eyes. They said that it would never happen. Well, it did happen. It is happening as we speak, and Canadians have to bear the brunt of it. The Bank of Canada has confirmed it too. Now, instead of taking responsibility for their actions, admitting they were wrong and taking real steps to help Canadian families, they are just throwing more fuel on this inflationary fire. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, and Canadian families continue to pay the price for these failed Liberal experiments.
As I look at the fall economic statement, I see an exercise in out-of-touch self-congratulation, with the government saying, “Look what we've done to make Canadians better off.” In fact, it is hard to tell sometimes what is more inflated, the economy or the Liberals' egos. We can see that throughout the front benches. To listen to the finance minister speak, it is as if she cannot understand why Canadians are not lined up around the block to thank her and the Prime Minister for all their new-found prosperity.
The government is out of touch and Canadians are out of money. The fall economic statement shows it spent $400 million to pay for its COVID–19 border testing regime. That is $400 million to ensure that border communities remain in limbo, families remain separated and local economies along the border are destroyed. It is $400 million to cause unprecedented delays at our airports and discriminate against Canadians who used their own judgment or who chose to keep their personal medical choices private. That is hardly money well spent.
Then there is another $42 million to the CBC. Canadian parents are skipping meals so their kids can eat. They cannot pay their bills. They are worried that they will not be able to heat their homes all winter. They are very concerned about rising interest rates, hoping that they will not push their mortgage payments out of reach. What is the government's response? Let us give the CBC another $42 million.
The CBC received over $1 billion last year, and $1 billion the year before. Do members know how the CBC chose to spend that money? It spent it on bonuses. It was on $30 million in bonuses. Averaged across the employees, that is $14,300 for each employee. Last year, it took the money that the federal government gave it and it paid out $156 million in bonuses. It did that while everyday Canadians are suffering, while everyday Canadians saw their bank accounts shrink and businesses were forced to close their doors.
Our public broadcaster has long ceased to represent everyday Canadians. The government has been in the business of subsidizing that media for way too long.
Those are a few things that are in the statement. Let us talk about what is missing. First is health care. Where is the $4.5 billion in mental health transfers the government promised? Mental health care was a huge issue in Canada before COVID. The government response, the isolation, the fearmongering and the shame have only served to exacerbate the problem. The number one issue in high schools these days is mental health and depression.
The government promised $4.5 billion of new health care spending over five years. That is spending that we agreed was needed. However, where is it? It was missing from the budget. It was missing from the fall economic update. The government dropped $200 billion on everything but health care, but it cannot fulfill a vital election promise for $4.5 billion.
Did the Liberals just forget about health care, about the mental health of Canadians, or did their deal with the NDP mean that they had to repurpose those funds to buy their support? The $4.5 billion tagged for mental health is nowhere to be found, but suddenly the Liberals have been able to come up with an unbudgeted $5.3 billion to buy off their buddies in the NDP with a new national dental program. That number seems way too close to just be coincidental.
If so, it marks one of the most callous and craven displays of political self-interest that I have ever seen. Do Canadians need dental care? Of course they do. We recognize dental care is an important aspect of overall health. We also recognize that two-thirds of Canadians already have coverage and access to good dental care.
Do members know how long the wait to see a psychiatrist is in Manitoba? It is two years. For a child or a youth, it can take even longer. One ER doctor told my office that, prior to COVID, mental health cases made up about one out of seven ER walk-in patients. Post-COVID, that number is one in three. The ratio was one to seven before COVID, and it is one to three after COVID. Where are the mental health dollars? They are nowhere to be found.
One in three Canadians cannot get the mental health services they need. They have nowhere else to go. We wonder why our ERs are overwhelmed. COVID restrictions led to huge upswings in mental health and addictions issues, especially among our young people. Our health care system is at the breaking point because they cannot cope with the demand.
We need to fund health care, and mental health care is health care. Before its members even start, the government always claims that Conservatives want it both ways, saying that one day we say to spend more money and the next day we say to cut. That is just not true. We just recognize there is a limit to what can be done.
Despite what the government and their purchased partners in the NDP seem to think, we recognize there is a limited number of government dollars to go around. That means that we need to choose what we are going to prioritize.
I have lots more here, and I could go on for a long time yet, talking about—
1497 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Liberals' next leader, Mark Carney, said this was a homegrown problem. He is a pretty smart guy, so if he says this is a homegrown problem, it must be a Liberal problem.
We are listening to Canadians and we are in tune with our constituents. We are in tune with the kitchen table issues. These are the issues: home heating, fuel for cars, groceries for the kids and interest rates on mortgages. Those are the issues that have been exacerbated in our country. All Canadians are feeling the impacts, and it is because of failed Liberal policies.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that was a very relevant question. We need to look at the good, the bad and everything. I have tried to do that with regard to the fall economic statement.
I have had an opportunity to point out and articulate what I think are some of the failings and shortcomings of the statement. When I look at it, I have to ask myself what is good about it. What is good about it is that it is not worse.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, why would we not support GST on just home heating? That is a very narrow ask and it would not benefit everybody.
What if we remove the carbon tax? The carbon tax affects absolutely everything in our economy. The carbon tax does not just drive up the cost of driving a vehicle from home to a place of work or to our kids' schools. It affects the cost of the farmers heating their grain and of the transport trucks delivering goods and services across the country, and it adds to the cost of groceries. The carbon tax is only a tax. It is not an environmental policy at all. It is just an additional tax grab. I think the Liberals are even starting to see the errors of their ways.
The carbon tax should be reduced. It affects absolutely everything in our economy.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
