- Member of Parliament
- Liberal
- Lac-Saint-Louis
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $123,581.21
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I am rising for the second time this week to speak to this issue. As I said at the beginning of my speech at second reading, I was so interested in this issue that I offered to sit on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying when it dealt with the question of mental illness. I felt it was my duty to take part in a debate that is so important for our society. This is a crucial and extremely complex social debate. As a legislator, I wanted to learn more about this hot-button public policy issue that is so important to my constituents. Many of them have written to me about this.
I attended much of the debate on the issue this week, and I was very impressed by the tone. It is true that emotions can sometimes get the better of us, but that is to be expected when we are debating such a crucial matter, a matter of life and death. I must say that I was impressed that the debate was conducted in a respectful manner. That is impressive, and we should adopt that same tone when we discuss the many other issues addressed here in the House.
I heard arguments that I do not want to call fallacious, because that is a pejorative term and I do not want to criticize anyone, but let us just say that I heard a few contradictions during certain speeches.
First, someone claimed that we could have simply amended Bill C-62 to include advance requests. I do not think we are ready to make a hasty amendment to open the door to something as complex—if not more—as medical assistance in dying, namely, medical assistance in dying for persons with a mental illness. It took much effort, much debate, much discussion and several committee meetings for us to be able to talk about medical assistance in dying for patients with a mental illness.
Moreover, the idea that we can move an amendment in committee is wrong, because such an amendment would certainly be ruled out of order, since the scope of the bill is not that broad. The bill deals with a specific question, namely, medical assistance in dying for persons with a mental illness.
People claim we are taking too much time to debate this issue, that it has already been three years and that we should end the debate. We are not talking about policies like affordability or the need to build housing as quickly as possible. We are talking about something very serious. We really are going beyond the more practical issues, and I think it will take the time it takes because there is no consensus among the experts. If there is no consensus, we cannot force the issue, suddenly demand consensus and insist we move forward because time is running out. The issue of how long it will take to reach a good conclusion is unfortunately not a problem for me.
As I was saying, this is not simply a technical medical issue, it is a moral and ethical issue for society, certainly.
The matter of caution was also raised. Some claim that the government is too cautious, too timid, on this issue, that it is not acting as quickly as people would like, that it has not addressed the issue fast enough or lacks political will. It does in fact lack political will because there are too many uncertainties. In this case, it is not a bad thing to lack political will in order to forge ahead as soon as possible.
However, on this idea of being too cautious, I would say that this is true even for the Bloc Québécois, because it has accepted the framework we have established. For the moment, we are not implementing this framework. Nevertheless, under the framework, not everyone who requests medical assistance in dying on the grounds of a mental illness will receive it. We are talking about a mere 5% acceptance rate. Even if we went ahead, we would do so with a lot of caution, given the 95% of people who would request medical assistance in dying on those grounds.
We should then not talk as if caution were not an issue. Caution is an issue, even if we agree to move forward. I would like to ask my colleagues who keep disparaging the government for its caution whether it would be too cautious to require that, in these cases, a psychiatrist be involved in assessing the person's request. Right now, it is not necessary for a psychiatrist to be involved in the assessment. In the Netherlands, where medical assistance in dying is legal, a psychiatrist must give an opinion on the request. There is caution built into the process, but it is not unreasonable. I would say that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois agree that some caution is required.
There is also talk about freedom. Some say that this is a matter of freedom, as if they were talking about absolute freedom. It is not a matter of absolute freedom, because 95% of those requesting medical assistance in dying would not have access to it on the grounds of a mental illness. We need to make things clear and add nuance to this debate to avoid giving the impression we are talking about absolute concepts.
Then they bring up the issue of the Quebec nation. I listened carefully to my friend, the hon. member from Joliette, with whom I enjoyed working on election reform. He is a seasoned parliamentarian who makes excellent speeches in the House. He said that there were many nations in Canada. Indeed, there is the Quebec nation, but there are also indigenous nations. There are indigenous nations within the Quebec nation as well. What I understand is that indigenous nations are not too keen to move this issue forward at this time. They say that they have not been consulted enough. They have concerns about the systemic racism that exists in health care systems across the country. Among other things, they are afraid that not enough thought will be put into processing the requests.
We should not focus too much on the idea of community when it comes to medical assistance in dying. When people get to that point, when they are on their death bed, I do not think they dwell too much on the community. Each person is a soul facing infinity alone. That is why we should not talk too much about nations when we are discussing medical assistance in dying. It is not a matter of being part of a community. I agree that it is a matter of individual rights. That is where it gets complicated, because we do not want people to suffer.
However, we do not want people to do things that have not been assessed with the utmost caution, because it is a matter of life and death.
I will stop here and await my colleagues' questions.
1185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech, and I must say I found the first couple of minutes rather engaging and rigorous. It included an enunciation of principles. I did not agree with the suppositions and the line of argument, but it had rigour. Then, of course, the member lost me when she started comparing Canada to North Korea. I do not think anyone lends credence to that kind of argument.
I also found there were contradictions in the member's speech. She said the cybersphere is limitless, where everyone has a voice, and that is absolutely true. One cannot suppress the Internet, so how can one even begin to think that it could be censored? Second, the member says that Canadian culture does not need support, that it should survive on its own and that it can survive on its own, yet if we look at all the feature films that make it to the Oscars, if we look at the end of the credits, there is funding from government agencies and there are tax credits to make sure the films are done here, and that is how we are supporting Canadian culture, too.
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 11:14:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, which I thought was very clear.
I would like to ask him for some clarification so I can better understand where the Conservatives are coming from. Why does he think the Conservatives are talking about an insurance premium as though it was a tax? I will make a comparison. When I pay my premium—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/15/22 4:53:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened to almost all the speeches today, whether from here in my seat in this House of Parliament or behind the curtain when I had to step out. I found so many of the speeches erudite and touching.
I learned about history. I learned about the history of our great nation. I learned about the history of democracy. I learned about the history of the Commonwealth. I shared in the wisdom of the words of Queen Elizabeth II that were quoted by different members. I also learned about regional histories, about parts of this country where Loyalists settled. I learned about their attachment to the monarchy, the values that the monarchy represented to them and the values that they brought to this great country of ours.
We also heard many personal stories.
These were stories of ordinary life, stories told by people, by individuals, not about major events but about things they care about.
I heard many stories told by individual MPs about their brushes with the Queen, with royal visits, with meeting the Queen, and of course we have all read stories like the one that was repeated today and I read in The Globe and Mail last week. It was about Catherine Clark and how she knew she could not leave a reception until the Queen left, and how they marched off together, arm in arm. It is a very touching story that, no doubt, is extremely dear to Ms. Clark.
I also read, in the paper, recollections and anecdotes from Prime Minister Mulroney, who spoke about how he spent a very long stretch with the Queen around a very informal lunch at 24 Sussex. How wonderful that memory must be for Mr. Mulroney and his wife Mila.
Of course, we all know that the Queen had a soft spot for Prime Minister Chrétien. We could see it, in fact, on her face. Whenever we see a photo of the Queen meeting Mr. Chrétien, she is beaming. He was no doubt one of her favourite people in the world.
Like all, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the only monarch I have known. She has been a constant for me as she has been for countless others. She represents, and this has been mentioned many times in speeches, the bedrock of our constitutional democracy. She represents the constancy of our democracy. Like all here in the House, I deeply appreciate our constitutional democracy. I appreciate its separation of the role of head of state from that of head of government, which provides us with a sense, as has been said by so many, that the institutions are much greater than those who may occupy those institutions at any one period of time, and that our democracy is much stronger than the partisan conflicts that arise from time to time, which, of course, are part of democracy. We have the sense that there is something overarching these political debates and these partisan debates.
I also appreciate, as I am sure so many others in the House do, that Canada, and we cannot separate the history of the Crown from the history of Canada, was not born of violence and revolution. Yes, there has been violence in our past and there has been oppression. These past wrongs need to be addressed, but essentially Canada evolved. It adapted.
That capacity to adapt, that ethic of adapting rather than pushing for violent breaks with the past, I believe, has a lot to do with the Crown and the wisdom of the Crown. We saw this, in fact. It is very important to understand that while Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II did not have legislative power, military power or the power of financial markets, she had the power of moral suasion, the power of the wisdom that she acquired over a lifetime.
I was reading in the paper, related by former prime minister Brian Mulroney, how she supported his policy to end apartheid. As we know, Prime Minister Thatcher was not on the same side as Mr. Mulroney in this historical initiative. The Queen offered her wisdom to Mr. Mulroney and supported him in his quest to end apartheid. We also heard about how the Quebec Act allowed for the peaceful evolution of our nation, a peaceful evolution that respected people's rights. The Crown has been very instrumental in this capacity of our democracy to adapt peacefully.
This goes back to my point, which I just mentioned, that we have heard a lot in the speeches about how the Queen must have so many stories. I know what people mean by that and I revel in that thought, but it is more than stories. She has been more than an observer in history because she has had access to first-hand knowledge and information, intelligence, if we want to call it that. She would have consulted and been consulted by those making very important decisions, so she has been more than an observer. She has been an actor, an actor without the power that we associate with political power but an actor with the power of persuasion, and that is very important. That has been very important in the evolution of our country and the evolution of the Commonwealth.
Of course, in addition to all of this, Her Majesty the Queen embodied certain values and virtues that we can call personal values and virtues, the values of graciousness and kindness, virtues that, quite frankly, are still relevant today and can continue to inform us and produce a more harmonious world, including more harmonious politics.
She was a bedrock presence in our lives and we will miss her. I would like to extend my sincerest condolences to all members of the royal family, all the people of Britain and all those around the world who had an emotional connection with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
989 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 1:07:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that was an amazing speech. I have two questions for the hon. member.
There has been a lot of talk about division, but I would be interested in hearing her comments on the role of disinformation in stoking that division. I would also like her comments on the naive suggestion that if only the Prime Minister had sat down and had a cup of coffee with the leaders of the convoy, somehow everyone would have gone home happy.
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:04:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as a preamble I would like to say I am not sure I agree with taking events from the past and comparing them directly, because every one is different and each context is different. I would not compare a natural disaster to a conscious, coordinated movement, which is what we have seen. There has been coordination between what happened in Coutts and what has happened here.
I enjoyed the member's speech. It was rigorous and analytical. My question for him is this. Abstracting from the so-called reason for the “freedom convoy”, which was trucker mandates and not really the reason, is he not concerned that there is a longer-term movement in parts of the country? For example, the same organizers were involved in the United We Roll convoy. Also, I read somewhere that the Facebook page for Canada Unity was registered in 2019.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
