44th Parl. 1st Sess.

February 13, 2024 10:00AM

Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24

Feb/13/24 11:40:03 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-7

Mr. Speaker, a lot of discussions needs to take place at the AMAD committee, to look at the existing legislation. However, right now, we are dealing with a timely situation, and I am going to speak to that. This is around the Liberal government's ill-advised decision to accept the Senate amendment to Bill C-7 in the 43rd Parliament. That is what has gotten us here today. This is why we are having to rush legislation, because there is not adequate support for people with the sole underlying medical condition of a mental disorder. The Liberals changed the law before any kind of comprehensive review had been conducted, and we have been trying to play catch-up ever since. The Liberals decided to support an amendment from the Senate, the unelected Senate, that was brought back to the House. We voted against it because of that. We did not believe that the supports were in place for people to make those decisions. We are working toward ensuring that we have parity between our mental and physical health care system, that we listen to the experts and that we do a full evaluation. This needs to take place. However, I appreciate the comments from my colleague in that there needs to be broader conversations about the existing legislation.

219 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24

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

Feb/13/24 12:16:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the member's comments. One thing that stuck in my mind was when he made reference to the fact that the Province of Quebec took a number of years to design its legislation. It is important to demonstrate the contrast with the federal government back in 2015; the member made reference to the Supreme Court decision. We had a very short window to get the legislation passed. I personally do not believe, and I suspect that no one really believed, that the legislation at the time was absolute, in terms of being perfect. However, we needed to get it through. Could he reflect on the many discussions and debates inside and outside the chamber with Canadians as a whole, with respect to how important it was that, at least, we bring forward and get the legislation in, in order to meet court requirements?

149 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

Feb/13/24 3:14:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties— Some hon. members: No.

14 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24

Mr. Richard Bragdon

Feb/13/24 4:01:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing his thoughts. However, I will take exception to where he is taking that thought. We cannot expect any parliamentarian who enters the House to separate what informs their decision-making process and the values they hold dear when it comes to debates in the House. If this is indeed the people's House, the House of Commons that represents the voices of the common people, no voice, world view, value set or concept should be dismissed out of hand. They should be welcomed and embraced. We should have wholesome discussions on these matters, especially a matter pertaining to life and death. No, I will not separate my values nor my world view from that discussion. They help inform the discussion.

129 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

SoVote

House Hansard - 281