44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 5, 2023 10:00AM
- Oct/5/23 10:07:57 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I am standing up since on your election to the chair as the Speaker of the House of Commons, I want to extend my personal congratulations to you.
Having said that, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition. This return will be tabled in an electronic format.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/23 10:21:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the member has a number of petitions. I find that, as I am listening to them, at times, the member will make his petitions fairly political. It is supposed to be a relatively brief comment on the content and not necessarily a reading or a politicization of the petition.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/23 10:24:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one thing the government has done is support Canadians through difficult times. We understand and appreciate the whole issue of the cost of living. That is one of the reasons we came up with the grocery rebate, in essence supporting somewhere in the neighbourhood of 11 million Canadians.
The legislation we have before us today is in recognition of the fact that we need to see more competition. The minister has met with the big five grocers, if I can put it that way. We want to see lower prices. We want to see more stabilization.
What would the member do, in addition to the many things we have already done, to assist Canadians on this very important issue?
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to make reference to the member's statement with respect to Airbnbs. It amplifies the need for the government to recognize the roles we all play. One way to meet the needs of Canadians for housing is for all levels of government to work together, federal, provincial and municipal. Airbnb is more of a local municipality issue, so it is best for the municipalities to deal with that. From a national perspective, it is important that we demonstrate leadership on a number of fronts, which I believe we have demonstrated.
Could I get the member's thoughts on how important it is that all levels of government work together to meet this situation?
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad the Conservatives are going to be voting in favour of the legislation.
The member makes reference to groceries and the need for competition. Is he aware that the last major buy-up that reduced competition was under Stephen Harper when Loblaws purchased Shoppers? It had a very profound impact on the size of one company. I think the purchase was over $12 billion.
The legislation the member says he is going to vote in will help deal with issues like that. Does he see that as positive? Does he support that particular aspect of the legislation?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I remember very clearly, going right back to 1993, that I was advocating that the federal government play a role in housing, but every political party inside the House of Commons opposed such involvement. A lot has changed under the current Prime Minister.
The current Prime Minister is the first prime minister since the early 90s who has made a clear statement that we have to invest in housing. He has brought forward a national strategy of housing, from virtually day one to the legislation we have today, where we are, again, saying that the federal government needs to play a role.
Yes, it is important, and it is nice to see that we have a national government that wants to play that federal role, but all the stakeholders need to come together in order to deal with this housing situation properly. This includes non-profit organizations, other levels of government and, of course, the federal government. Would the hon. member not agree with that?
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am sure it will come as no surprise that I totally disagree with what the member is saying. He is making it very clear that he is in opposition to this legislation. For clarification purposes, does the member intend to vote against this legislation?
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/23 4:29:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, given where we are in the session, we are not going to argue the member's vote should count, unless there is unanimous leave to count it this time around. We will ensure that it will not happen again in the future.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/23 4:30:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will return for second reading debate on Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord implementation act.
Upon our return, priority will be given to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. I would also like to note that Tuesday, October 17, shall be an allotted day.
Let me wish all colleagues a happy Thanksgiving, and I hope every member has a wonderful time with their family, friends and constituents over the coming constituency week.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/23 4:42:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide an assurance that we will review what the member said and report back at some point with regard to her statement.
28 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, a great deal of emphasis in the member's comments was on housing. This is the first time in generations, since 1993, which was when there were constitutional changes to the Charlottetown accord, and all political parties, with the exception of the Greens, wanted the provinces to play a role and marginalize Ottawa. Since 2016, when we first came to office, this government has invested hundreds of millions to billions of dollars into a housing strategy, support for non-profits such as Habitat for Humanity and the expansion of housing co-ops. Local and provincial governments want to co-operate in investing in non-profit housing.
My question to the member is fairly straightforward. Would he not acknowledge that Ottawa plays a very important role, but it is going to take a lot more than Ottawa alone to resolve the problem? Does he agree that we need municipalities, non-profit groups, many different stakeholders and the provinces to all get on board so we can tackle this issue in Canada today.
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on an issue that has been fairly extensively debated over the last number of years. Members will recall that the reason we are having today's debate goes back to 2015, when a Supreme Court of Canada decision ultimately obligated parliamentarians here in the House to develop and pass a law that took into consideration the ruling made by the Supreme Court, with the necessity for the government to provide a framework.
It was not a very easy challenge when that decision was ultimately made. I do not know how best to put it, but the Government of Canada, at the time run by Stephen Harper, ultimately sat on the issue until there was an election. That election saw a change in government, and it was one of the first orders of business that the Government of Canada, under the current Prime Minister, had to deal with.
Over the years, I have been engaged in many different types of debates on all forms of legislation. When I am talking to young people who are trying to get a sense of what we do here in Parliament, I talk about legislation, and I will often make reference to Bill C-7. For Bill C-7, a very passionate debate took place on the floor of the House of Commons back in Centre Block. I can recall it vividly because of all the different emotions that were being expressed on the floor and all the discussions that took place.
It was not taken lightly. If we take a look over the years at the number of Canadians who have been consulted in one form or another with regard to medical assistance in dying, we are not talking about tens of thousands. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, in many different forms. They came together to voice opinions and concerns. In fact, we had a standing committee that did an incredible number of consultations, not only with individuals in our communities but with many different stakeholders.
In the debates that I have seen, I do not think we referenced our health care professionals and the important role they played in the debates. I want to start off by talking about that, because I think it is really important that, as Bill C-314 will ultimately be voted on, we understand and appreciate the number of discussions and the amount of effort that took place for the current legislation we have, which was amended.
As we saw, there were some issues that ultimately came out of Bill C-7, which caused another government bill to come to the floor. Again, a lot of repeat discussions took place and it ultimately passed. I think that is why the member has made the decision to propose his private member's bill. The changes that were made in what I think was Bill C-39, although I am not 100% sure and the member can correct me if I am wrong in his closing comments, are what might have brought forward this particular piece of legislation.
To be clear on what Bill C-314 does, it proposes to permanently exclude the eligibility to receive medical assistance in dying on the basis of a mental disorder alone. Wording is really important. I know that in the original debates with all the different stakeholders, and I made reference in particular to our health care professionals, the quality of the presentations and the understanding of the serious nature of the issue were, I would suggest, second to no other out of the debates I have witnessed, in particular given some of the things we heard coming out of committees.
As I reflect on that debate, I think that, in good part throughout the process, we saw many members of Parliament put their party position to the side and reflect in terms of what each believed as a parliamentarian. Maybe it was a crossover of personal beliefs versus the canvassing that many people no doubt had in terms of their constituents and wanting to reflect the general will of their constituents.
At the end of the day, when we think of medical assistance in dying and the issue of a mental disorder, I do not think that we want to try to simplify the message. As we all know, I am not a medical professional, but I have an immense amount of respect for what our medical professionals have to go through in order to be put into a position, because it is not just any and every doctor or nurse practitioner; there is a whole lot more that is involved. Towards the end of the debate, particularly on the second piece of legislation dealing with this particular issue, we had members who stood up and said, “Well, just put in your order”, almost as if someone were going through a drive-through and then it is done. We all know that is, by far, not the case.
I will fall back on the fine work that our standing committees have done. I am going to fall back on the issues and how they were explained, in good part, by the different stakeholders. I am going to stand by what the health care professionals brought forward to us. I will look at the information that was provided and ultimately reflect on what I believe in this particular situation and what a vast majority of the constituents I represent would want me to say on this particular issue. I will do this with very much a sympathetic heart, understanding the difficult situation that, unfortunately, far too many people have to face.
We can have as much sympathy as we want for those individuals who are looking at the possibility of getting medical assistance in dying, but it is one thing to sympathize and it is another thing to empathize. Based on everything I have looked at and listened to over the last number of years, I have not been convinced that this is, in fact, the direction that we should be going with regard to Bill C-314. I am just not convinced.
I think that what we ultimately need to do is continue to monitor and look at ways in which we can ensure that there is no abuse of the MAID legislation. We need to continue to show compassion in every way we can. We need to continue to listen to what the experts, individuals and stakeholders are telling us and try to build more value to the legislation so there is a higher sense of comfort in the broader community, which I believe there is today. The mechanisms are there, and there are opportunities to continue to be able to review.
1143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
