- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Montcalm
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $126,025.95
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, the minister spoke about a lot of things. I feel he spoke very little about Bill C-64. However, when we talk to him about Quebec’s interests, he rises in the House and always says that the Bloc Québécois is looking for a fight. Quebec has been administering a mixed drug insurance plan for the past 28 years, but the minister never sat down with Quebec before making his announcement to see how Quebec manages this and how much it might cost.
Does the minister know how many prescription drugs are covered by Quebec’s drug insurance? Has he sat down with the health minister, who says that Quebec does have constitutional rights? When the minister says we are looking for a fight, he should add the word “constitutional”. It is as though we Bloc members have more respect for Canada’s Constitution than he does, despite his party having done all it could to prevent Quebec from signing the Constitution in 1982. Is he aware that the minister wants nothing to do with his pharmacare plan as proposed?
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague is claiming that Bill C-14 resulted in good legislation with its reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion. However, that did not even address the Carter ruling, since Ms. Carter did not have a condition that made her terminally ill. The Supreme Court ordered Parliament to regulate situations like those of Ms. Carter and Ms. Taylor. Limiting medical assistance in dying to people who are terminally ill completely ignores people like Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon, who had to go to court to assert their constitutional right. People have had to go on hunger strikes to meet the reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion.
Is that what my colleague calls compassion?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 12:19:14 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-7
Madam Speaker, my colleague gave us a history lesson.
He said that his party was not able to move forward because there was an election. I would point out to him that Quebec has had two elections in those six years. That did indeed delay the work, as he will agree. However, I do agree with him that Quebec's approach crosses party lines and is far more thorough.
Some people complain about the delay associated with the Carter decision, but that is because this Parliament never took the opportunity to try to change the Criminal Code before there was a court order. It never had the courage to do that, and so we were then stuck with a court order. Mr. Lametti did not stand up solely because the bill did not go far enough. He stood up because it violated patients' constitutional rights. Bill C-7 corrected that.
I would like my colleague to explain what he is advocating when it comes to advance requests for MAID. Does he think that the government, which had a year to introduce legislation, could have included that component in this bill?
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful speech. He raised several points.
This bill is not nothing. It enacts a reverse onus. The Bloc Québécois said that it will support this bill. However, does the member believe that Bill C-48, as it now stands, passes the constitutional test that he spoke about earlier? If so, why? If not, why?
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 4:04:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, I think the minister should not start a debate on that topic. It is a diversion. It is unnecessary. He is a Quebecker. The choice belongs to him. To be a Quebecker is a political choice and it is not the same as looking like a Quebecker. I suggest to him a book by Michael Mandel, a professor of constitutional law at York University in Toronto, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Judicialization of Politics in Canada, written in the 1990s. If he has read the book, I do not think he understood it. The same applies to the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.
Now, I would like to say that I almost stood up earlier to raise a question of privilege, because the minister is misleading the House.
The Bloc motion calls for recognition of the Act respecting the Constitution Act, 1982, René Lévesque's law, which pre-emptively introduced the notwithstanding clause into all Quebec laws. This is what—
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 9:28:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, according to some constitutional experts, it is not enough for the Emergencies Act to be useful for the government to proclaim its application. It must be demonstrated that it is necessary and indispensable.
Would my colleague agree that this will be difficult if not impossible to demonstrate, given that the conflict has been allowed to worsen for three weeks, and that not all the legal tools available have been deployed?
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
