- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Louis-Saint-Laurent
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $128,105.00
- Government Page
- Sep/18/23 3:44:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Monique Bégin figures among the Canadian women who had a positive impact on the course of our country's history. Not only was she a positive force in politics, but she also had a brilliant academic career and was a dedicated activist.
She was born in Rome, but her family emigrated to Canada after the Second World War. A bright student, she earned a master's degree in sociology and a doctorate in the same field from the Sorbonne. Very early on, she became involved in the feminist movement and joined the Fédération des femmes du Québec, among others.
She was an impressive woman who made her mark, and that is why the Government of Canada gave her the delicate task of being the secretary general of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Status of Women in Canada. As my ministerial colleague mentioned earlier, that important commission made 167 recommendations, which still serve as a source of inspiration today, since women are still facing many challenges 50 years later.
Ms. Bégin was elected for the first time in 1972.
Let me be clear. That was a very good election for women at that time. My colleague talked about three Quebec women. There were also people who were very involved in this election who played a major role in our democracy. I think about the Right Hon. Jeanne Sauvé.
She was the first female Speaker of the House of Commons and Governor General.
Let me also pay my respects to the Hon. Flora MacDonald, who was elected for the first time in 1972. She was the first Canadian woman, in 1979, to be the external affairs minister and the first woman in that role among G7 countries.
In Pierre Trudeau's cabinets, Ms. Bégin occupied a number of prominent roles, including Minister of Health. She was the driving force behind the creation of the child tax credit, the increasing of the guaranteed income supplement and the unanimous passing, in this very House in 1984, of the Canada Health Act, which reinforced the universality and accessibility of Canada's health system.
As a Quebecker who had a passion for politics in my teen years, I remember vividly the Hon. Monique Bégin's vigorous, sometimes even ferocious involvement in the 1980 referendum campaign. There is something else I remember from her departure in 1984 after 12 years of exemplary service in the Canadian government. A journalist with very pointed questions asked her if she had any regrets. Immediately, she replied “the UFFI file”. UFFI was a home insulation product that sadly turned out to be poison. It was also a bit of a poisonous issue for the government of the day. Ms. Bégin, with all her bluntness and candour, acknowledged that when she left.
In 1998, she was appointed an officer of the Order of Canada for having had such a positive influence on the advancement of social sciences at the national level, especially in health and education.
Last year, the Order of Canada promoted her to the rank of companion, highlighting her “made a decisive contribution to several causes, including the respect for human rights and the enhancement of the quality of life of disadvantaged and marginalized communities both in Canada and abroad.”
Many people made statements in response to the death of the Hon. Monique Bégin. The Hon. Ed Broadbent, known to many as Canada's social conscience, was quoted as follows in the Montreal Gazette:
Canada has lost an exceptional woman. Monique Bégin was a leader in the cause of gender equality, a leader in bringing universal healthcare to Canada and in general a leader in almost all aspects of concerns about inequality.
On behalf of the official opposition, I would like to offer the family of the Hon. Monique Bégin, a great parliamentarian, a great intellectual, a great advocate, and above all, a great woman, our deepest condolences.
688 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pride and emotion to take part once again in the debate on medical assistance in dying.
I have had the privilege of being a member of Parliament for nearly eight years now. I was also a member of the Quebec National Assembly from 2008 to 2015. I, along with my colleague from Bourassa, am one of the few here who have participated in the debate on medical assistance in dying as a member both at the provincial level and the federal level. I can say in all modesty that this gives me a very unique perspective. I will expand on this in a moment.
If there is one issue that calls for political partisanship to be put aside, it is medical assistance in dying. I have a fundamental belief that has not altered one bit in the time I have been involved in these debates: There is no right or wrong position, there is only the position that each person, as a human being, is comfortable with.
When we hear an opposing viewpoint, we should listen and respect it, not attack it in a partisan way. I will always remember something that happened in June 2014 in the National Assembly. A Liberal MNA at the time, Saul Polo, was sharing his views in the debate on medical assistance in dying. He was vehemently opposed to it, to an extent that is hard to imagine. I remember it very well, because I was sitting along a line in the National Assembly that was perpendicular to where he was. His face was flushed with passion and his fist was clenched, and he was saying that we should not touch this subject. When he finished his remarks, I stood up and applauded him, not because I agreed with him, but because I was celebrating the fact that in that legislature we could have completely divergent, but respected and respectful views.
That is the approach we should be taking when dealing with an issue as personal, sensitive and human as medical assistance in dying. We can trade jabs back and forth all day long, and let us just say that I do pretty well when it comes to attacking my opponent. There may be 1,000 good reasons to attack one's opponent, but please, we must not use MAID to attack one another. We must respect opposite views.
We have come together today because the government has decided to set aside its goal to allow access to medical assistance in dying for people with mental illness. It is the right thing to do. While I personally support a well-regulated MAID regime combined with extensive palliative care, the issue of medical assistance in dying for people with mental illness is extremely sensitive, so these kinds of measures must not be rushed through.
The government had intended to expand access to MAID as soon as possible, that is, in just a few days, to include people struggling with mental illness. It has since decided to take a pause. I cannot call it a step back, because the government still plans to go ahead with this, but in a year from now. This is not the right way to go, and I will explain why.
Any number of personal reasons may be in play when people decide where they stand. I imagine we all know one person who has experienced serious mental health issues and hit rock bottom, never to recover—or so those around them believed. We all also know people who have bounced back from terrible trials that dragged them into a downward spiral, an abyss of profound sadness. With time, they managed to adapt to their reality, gradually build themselves back up and regain the sense of self-worth we all need.
That is why, as I see it right now, medical assistance in dying cannot be for people tumbling in the darkness. I have found the Quebec experience to be helpful in pondering this issue. To be clear, I am not saying that Quebec is better than anyone else. That is not it at all, but the fact is, there has been more legislative work and more studies on medical assistance in dying in Quebec than anywhere else. In Quebec, we have been talking about it for 15 years. I know what I am talking about because I participated in the debates in the National Assembly and in the House of Commons.
Here is a statistic that members might find surprising. More people are dying with medical assistance in Quebec than anywhere else in the world. The statistics published in Le Devoir in January show that 5.1% of the deaths in the province were medically assisted.
That is more than in the Netherlands and Belgium, which have rates of 4.8% and 2.3%, respectively.
Should we be proud of that situation? Should we be ashamed of it? No. It is just something that we should be aware of. It is not up to me to judge the fact that 5.3% of people in Quebec are currently choosing to have medical assistance in dying. That is just the reality. The figures do not lie.
The Quebec nation worked hard on this issue at the parliamentary level and, a few years ago, the government opened the door to studying the idea of whether medical assistance in dying should be made available to those suffering from mental illness.
After many weeks of thorough and rigorous work and hearing from as many as 3,000 people and hundreds of experts as part of a consultation process, the committee that examined the issue and the government in office decided not to move forward on medical assistance in dying for those suffering from mental illness. Why?
Here is what it says in the committee's report, and I quote:
We note, at the conclusion of our work, that there is no clear medical consensus on the incurability of mental disorders and the irreversible decline in capability that would be associated with them. There are differing positions among specialists. As legislators, it is difficult for us to comment on this issue.
The Liberal MNA David Birnbaum explained:
There is no clear consensus in the medical community on the incurability and irreversibility of mental disorders. Yet [these criteria] are part of the fundamental guidelines in the current legislation. Persistent doubts about the evaluation of these two criteria lead us to exercise [the greatest] caution.
That prompted the former Parti Québécois MNA for Joliette, Véronique Hivon, to say:
This decision proves that the goal is not to open up access more and more, to expand, but to open up the right amount of access to respect the individual while protecting the vulnerable.
That comes from Quebec, where 5.3% of the population chooses medical assistance in dying. This legislative measure came from Quebec. For 15 years, Quebec has been studying the issue of medical assistance in dying in an objective, neutral, non-partisan manner. I know what I am talking about, and so much the better.
The current government wanted to proceed hastily on this issue. No. I applaud and will vote in favour of this bill we are discussing this evening. It will allow us to take a lateral step to delay the Liberals' ambition. We will see where things stand in a year and whether they want to go further on this.
Everyone needs to understand one thing. By its very nature, medical assistance in dying is irreversible. Louise-Maude Rioux Soucy said it well in an editorial that appeared in Le Devoir on January 4:
MAID is offered as part of the continuum of care...There is an unwritten obligation attached to it: the quality and universality of palliative care must be beyond reproach in order to guarantee, at all times and in all circumstances, that medical assistance in dying is an exception.
I will now talk about a much more personal story. Last year, I was confronted with the reality of death. My mother, aged 97 years and 10 months, died in May, and my father, aged 99 years, four months and two days, died in December. As we can see, they died seven months apart and lived for a century. They were seriously ill at the end of their lives. In the winter of their lives, my mother and father fought to survive and death came for them.
MAID never came up because it was a non-issue. They were not interested. Our family was lucky. They got the most excellent palliative care available, and we are grateful. We were able to talk to them. Their children, grandchildren and even their great-grandchildren were able to talk to them. I wanted to share this because, at the hospital where my mother was, there was a section for people receiving palliative care who were about to die in a matter of days and, just down the hall, there was another section for people about to receive MAID. I had some great conversations with family members and even the individuals who requested MAID. The point is, we can and must respect the wishes of every individual. There is no right or wrong. There is only what we are comfortable with. I am comfortable with MAID as long as palliative care is available.
1573 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/22 11:10:31 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canada has lost a remarkable artist, the distinguished Jean Lapointe.
It would be an understatement to simply say he was a versatile artist. In fact, as Stéphane Laporte wrote, he was an entertainer, a comedian, a singer, an actor, an impersonator, a juggler and a magician who made everyone happy.
His career spanned more than 60 years, from small stages to large venues, and he and Les Jérolas, with Jérôme Lemay, will not be forgotten. They also found success abroad with appearances on the Ed Sullivan Show and at the Olympia in Paris.
Beyond his life as an artist, he was also committed to social causes. At a time when everyone knew it but no one talked about it, he was one of the first stars to publicly talk about his addiction problems. He was such a great man who showed so much humility, and what an impact he had. The Maison Jean Lapointe will save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.
Jean Lapointe will always be remembered as the extraordinary Maurice Duplessis of the Radio-Canada television series. I see that some of my colleagues remember him. What an extraordinary character and what a magnificent performance.
I will not repeat his lines about the Liberal Party because this is not the time, but it was very inspiring.
We extend our sincere condolences to his family and friends.
239 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/15/22 12:24:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a woman, a mother, a grandmother, and a great-grandmother, who was also a Queen, has passed away. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was a woman who embodied, in all her dignity and splendour, the durability of the state and duty done right. For 70 years, she inspired millions of people around the world, her subjects and people who were not British royalty, but who respected her greatly. She represented stability in a troubled world.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was not born a queen, however. It was a blip in history that elevated Elizabeth II to the highest throne of the British Empire, resulting in extraordinary ramifications for the whole of humanity. Even those with little knowledge of the hierarchy of the monarchy know that there were others in line for the throne before Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Her uncle, Edward VIII, acceded to the throne in 1936, but he abdicated less than a year later. In the end, it was good that he did, because this sovereign, unfortunately, was drawn in by the swastika. Once he stepped down, he was seen being welcomed into Nazi territory and was even received by the Führer in 1937.
Fortunately, that man, who believed in the politics of appeasement, abdicated and was no longer the sovereign when World War II swept over humanity. Fortunately, it was George VI, his brother and Elizabeth II's father, who was ruler then, with Winston Churchill's full support. As a result, despite the thunder of war and the horrors of the blitzkrieg, the whole of humanity resisted the Nazi order.
Let us talk about World War II because that is when Elizabeth II became the princess and, above all, a source of inspiration for her people. When war was declared, Elizabeth II, like millions of adults and millions of children, left her home and went to live in a rural area away from cities. Of course, they were not just ordinary people. They lived in a castle. Still, teenaged Elizabeth II remained in England, despite the Luftwaffe's relentless assaults and non-stop bombing campaign. She could have left the country, but she stayed along with her parents.
When she was 18 years old, she enlisted in the British army, like 200,000 of her compatriots. She could have stayed in her manor, in her palace, but she put on a uniform. She learned to be a mechanic, which is surprising, perhaps, but true. She served her country as soon as she was able, at the age of 18.
Members will recall the wonderful photographs depicting her father, mother, sister and her, in her uniform, when humanity triumphed on May 8, 1945. What many people do not know, however, is that right after this joyful announcement for all people, Elizabeth II put on her hat, pulled it down over her eyes, and went and joined the people. She wanted to experience this historic moment with the people she wished to represent and whose queen she would become just a few years later. That is what is called connecting with the people, despite the hierarchy and majesty that obviously bring with them privileges that very few people on this earth ever get to experience.
She became queen 70 years ago. I knew that she had visited Canada 22 times, but this morning I learned that Canada was the country that Elizabeth II visited the most. I was delighted to hear that. There is a reason why Canadians, whether we are monarchists or not, or whether we are pro-English or know no English, respected the woman that she was. All of my colleagues here are talking about when she visited their riding or province, how she visited the 10 provinces and three territories and how she took time to listen to people. That is to her credit. That is why people loved her so much.
She knew 12 prime ministers, from the current Prime Minister to the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, my riding's namesake. I would actually like to acknowledge the people of Louis‑Saint‑Laurent, thanks to whom I am still here today.
To my knowledge, the only time a sovereign delivered the Speech from the Throne was in 1957. Generally her representative here takes care of that. It could not have worked out better, because the prime minister in office at the time, the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, may have been the biggest monarchist of any prime minister of Canada.
I did not know Mr. Diefenbaker. When he took his last breath, in 1979, he was a member of Parliament. Everyone tells me that he felt immense joy at the idea of welcoming Her Majesty to Canada's Parliament to read his government's Speech from the Throne.
I will give voice to some prime ministers because there are 12 who knew her and who saw Queen Elizabeth II's qualities first-hand. I chose three at random and the three have the same political stripe. It is a coincidence.
The Right Hon. Stephen Harper, who was the prime minister of Canada for nine years, said:
Over the decades Her Majesty travelled to every part of our blessed land. She loved Canada with all her heart and was truly one of us. Canadians returned her feelings with pride and very real affection. While Canada matured and prospered throughout the decades of her reign, the Queen was a vibrant symbol of continuity, stability and progress.
The Right Hon. Stephen Harper, former prime minister of Canada, made this statement about the death of Her Majesty.
I also listened closely to the statement that the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney made on TVA and LCN on two major issues, apartheid and the French fact in Canada, that were important to Her Majesty.
Former prime minister Mulroney said, “Time and again she showed her respect for the history of bilingualism in Canada...she spoke impeccable French, supported enhancing the vitality and strength of the French language and of Quebec's role on the world stage.... She had tremendous respect for the unique role of Quebeckers.”
Former prime minister Mulroney's contribution to the fight against apartheid is one of his longest-lasting and most effective achievements, and he acknowledged the Queen's involvement. He said, “I was leading the Commonwealth at that time and therefore saw her often. There was no doubt in my mind that she shared our goal of securing Nelson Mandela's release and the end of the apartheid regime, which we achieved after imposing brutal sanctions on South Africa. That's what she wanted....”
I also enjoyed watching a very nice interview he gave on CBC's Power & Politics.
The interview was with the honourable Charles Joseph Clark, the former prime minister of Canada, and his daughter Catherine. Mr. Clark said she was “a remarkable human being”, had “natural” skills for diplomacy and was the heart of the institution.
I will summarize some of what he said. Her position, by nature, was isolating, and yet Her Majesty Elizabeth II never isolated herself. On the contrary, she went out to meet the people. She treated everyone as her equal; everyone had the right to speak their mind and be heard. She was always well briefed. She had to learn a lot about complex global issues spanning such a long period of time, and she took that duty seriously.
Furthermore, during this wonderful interview, his daughter Catherine Clark said that “she was the ultimate boss lady”.
These three prime ministers, who knew Her Majesty the Queen personally, gave us a good idea of who she was.
In closing, the Queen loved Canadians and, as René Lévesque said, you cannot love the people if you do not love what the people love. Her Majesty the Queen was drawn to hockey and wanted to understand the sport. She did not always understand it, especially at her first game, but she was curious about it.
It was a wonderful sight to behold when she dropped the puck alongside the Great One, Wayne Gretzky, in Vancouver in 2002.
We had the Queen and the king of the hockey world on the ice at the same time.
Let us also recall that she was in attendance when the Montreal Canadiens beat the New York Rangers. It was October 29, 1951, and Her Majesty was then a princess, not yet Queen. The Montreal Gazette wrote an article called “Couple Watches Game, Crowd Watches Couple”. That is how people received her.
Today, as we commemorate the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, let us remember the sense of duty she embodied and demonstrated so masterfully.
King Charles III has been to Canada 19 times. I invite his Majesty to visit us a 20th time.
1506 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
