- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Louis-Saint-Laurent
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $128,105.00
- Government Page
- Feb/13/24 12:17:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. I was there in 2015, when I got elected for the first time. As I said earlier, the prime minister at that time made the right decision not to put the bill on the table just before the election because this is everything but a political issue; it is a personal issue. An election campaign is anything but straight.
An election campaign is the epitome of political partisanship.
It was good that we did not have the debate during the campaign; after that, yes, for sure. We had a time frame established by the Supreme Court and we had to act as fast as possible, and that was not exactly the picture-perfect time to do it.
Based on the Quebec experience, we have to take our time to study an issue. The bill that has been adopted was not perfect. I voted against it because I saw many loopholes in the bill. I remember David Lametti; we voted against because it had not, in his mind, gone far enough to support. This is part of the debate, and there is no political-partisan agenda behind the debate. It is only a human agenda that we shall have.
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 12:07:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country.
Once again, I rise in the House to speak about a sensitive topic, one that is fundamental in our lives, and that is medical assistance in dying. Personally, I am in favour of medical assistance in dying. I am not here to defend my personal opinions. I am here as a legislator who has to consider all the data that support giving the green light, under certain conditions, to medical assistance in dying or, conversely, the red light urging us to not go forward.
I believe this is in no way a partisan issue. People can be on the left, they can be on the right, they can be sovereignists, or they can be federalists; that is not the point. It is a matter of how we, as human beings, feel about this issue. Regardless of where we come from or where we are on the political spectrum, we are first and foremost human beings. On that basis, we must make a choice for people who need medical assistance in dying, and we must make sure this is done right, within the proper rules.
We are dealing with this situation because the debate began here, at the federal level, in 2015. However, in Quebec, the debate began long before that. It just so happens that I have participated, both at the provincial and federal levels, in the early stages of this legislation that we are discussing today.
I would remind hon. members that the first province to have legislated on this issue did not do so overnight, quite the opposite. Only after six years of serious, thorough, scientific and medical debates and hearings did the Quebec government and the National Assembly vote for a law that would be the first step in medically assisted dying. I would like to emphasize the importance of that process. It was done over six years, under three different governments, under three different premiers. That proves this is not a partisan issue. As much as possible, we should always take this approach.
I will always remember, during the final debate on the adoption of the first steps toward medical assistance in dying in Quebec, how one of the members was very much against the bill. I can see him now, rising in the National Assembly and telling members not to vote for it. He felt so strongly on the issue and was so against the bill that he was red in the face. Once he sat down and the speech was over, I applauded him. I did not applaud him because I agreed with him. I applauded him because we live in a democracy that allows him to express an opinion that differs from my own. That is the beauty of democracy. Despite the fact that the majority of his party and his government were about to vote in favour of the bill, he was against it, and he had the opportunity to say so with all of the passion that drove him. That is how we should debate medical assistance in dying.
Let us not forget that this debate started at the federal level because of the Carter decision. Without going into detail, I will remind members that happened in 2015, which was an election year. Using his good judgment, the head of the Canadian government at the time did not move forward immediately because we were on the verge of an election campaign. At the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time today, this is not a partisan issue, while an election campaign by definition is the epitome of political partisanship. That is fine, that is what an election campaign is. That is why the prime minister and head of the Government of Canada at the time, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, showed good judgment and decided to hold the debate after the election campaign.
Canadians made their voice heard. They elected a new government. There was then a debate on the subject. That is when the first steps toward this bill on medical assistance in dying were taken. Some may have noticed that the bill, like all other bills, was not perfect. Nevertheless, it did lead to certain specific situations.
Personally, I was for medical assistance in dying, but I did not vote in favour of the bill because I found it was poorly drafted. I remember the Hon. David Lametti who, at the time, was not the minister of justice. As we know, he became minister of justice later on. The Prime Minister removed him from that office, and he decided to serve elsewhere. I remember that Mr. Lametti said that he would vote against the bill because he found that it did not go far enough. The bill was passed, but other things happened, and today we find ourselves having a debate on mental health.
I would remind members that I am in favour of medical assistance in dying as long as the rules are well defined. I will give the example of Quebec. Actually, I am going to talk about Quebec's experience, because an example is something that should be followed. Instead, let us take inspiration from the experience of Quebec, which held a political debate on the issue of medical assistance in dying for six years before passing its first bill on the subject.
With regard to MAID for people with mental illness, after holding hearings and consultations and thoroughly analyzing the issue, the Quebec National Assembly and the Government of Quebec decided not to move forward with MAID for people whose only underlying medical condition is a mental disorder. They felt that there was no consensus on this issue and that there was no scientific consensus. Some people were in favour of it, while others were against it.
That is where we are at right now. That is why I think that we need to be careful as long as there is no strong scientific consensus. Personally, I am in favour of medical assistance in dying, but I think that it must be administered to those who want it within a very clear legal framework. In this case, the framework does not go far enough.
I have a colleague from Nova Scotia, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, who is a physician. I listened carefully to what he had to say yesterday because he knows what he is talking about when it comes to his profession. He practised medicine for over a quarter of a century and continues to practise to this day. He cared for thousands of people in his community.
He talked about the hardest parts of his practice. One example he shared involved a person showing up in the middle of a suicide crisis on a Saturday night and needing treatment. That is not a broken arm, it is not a growing cancer, it is not trying to get a pebble out of someone's eye. It is much more complicated than that, and it cannot be resolved immediately.
That is why his perspective was so valuable.
He said he is ready to challenge anybody who is not in that kind of a situation and whether they would be comfortable with that.
He said that, in his practice, he had always found these situations very difficult, and that he needed time to recover from that kind of meeting. Anyone who has spoken to doctors dealing with patients who have suicidal feelings will confirm it. Mental health problems are difficult to identify and to treat. I would again remind members of Quebec's experience. After thoroughly examining this issue, Quebec decided not to go forward with medical assistance in dying for people struggling with psychiatric illnesses.
The issue of medical assistance in dying can never be separated from the issue of palliative care. Palliative care is an essential part of our health care system; we should always be thinking of doing more, because, unfortunately, we will never do enough in that area.
Without going into my life story, I can say that, two years ago, I had a particularly challenging year, given that both my parents died. I remember May 2022, when my mother spent the last days of her life in the hospital. She was in a wing where people were receiving palliative care, one after another. Then there were rooms with people who had requested medical assistance in dying. For the last 15 days of my mother’s rich life, I was with her in the hospital and met people who had requested MAID. They all did so in full knowledge of the facts and with the support, assistance, guidance, and, above all, the presence of their families, in the same way that we were with my mother in the last days of her life.
That is how we must look at the issue. Respecting the choices of individuals, insofar as the guidelines have been well established. That is true both for people who wish to receive medical assistance in dying and for those who wish to receive palliative care.
1526 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 10:40:05 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the minister and congratulate him on the quality of his French. I knew him when he arrived in 2015, and I have seen his progress, step by step. I would like to sincerely congratulate him on his French.
That is where my congratulations end. It is never a victory when a time allocation motion is introduced in a debate on an issue as sensitive as medical assistance in dying. This topic should be free from partisanship, because there is no right or wrong position. There are only the positions with which we are at ease as legislators. Opposing opinions should always be respected. Some of our friends, family members and loved ones may take the exact opposite view, and they are right. That is what a non-partisan debate is. That is what a debate about personal quality of life is.
As my colleague from Montcalm illustrated so well, the minister had a year to take action, but he did nothing. We realize that the Prime Minister decided to change justice ministers, as is his right and privilege, and we also realize that the predecessor to this Minister of Justice had a different approach.
However, in the face of such a delicate issue, why act so quickly when we need to make room for every possible opinion? This is not a partisan issue, let us not make it one.
237 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 5:45:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague and congratulating him on his impeccable French on this International Day of La Francophonie. However, that is as far as I will go with my thanks and congratulations, because I have some thoughts I want to share with him.
He is quite right in saying that we need to do our best to put partisanship aside when it comes to matters of integrity and ethics, and especially when it comes to our electoral system and the confidence we must have in it.
The facts speak for themselves. When the first rumours began to circulate about the Beijing regime's possible interference in the federal election, the Prime Minister always said that there was never any interference. When The Globe and Mail ran a first-page story saying that there had been interference, he asked how that information had been leaked to the media. That is a classic example of shooting the messenger rather than listening to the message.
Finally, after changing his mind three times, the Prime Minister decided to appoint a special rapporteur, which confirmed that there had indeed been unacceptable foreign interference. It makes no difference whether there was foreign interference affecting just one vote or an entire government.
Can the member acknowledge that his leader failed to lead by example and assume the responsibilities and authority of the office he holds, which is to be the Prime Minister of all Canadians?
245 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
- Apr/5/22 12:48:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, whom I also find to be very interesting. I do not always fully agree with him. Actually, to be honest, I rarely agree with him, but he is still a member who deserves and commands respect. I hold him in high regard.
I think the member's approach is the right approach. When it comes to national defence, and similarly when it comes to a national health crisis like the one we have been experiencing for the past two years, we must put aside political partisanship. There are a thousand and one appropriate ways to fight good political battles. I rather enjoy that, as everyone knows. I am sure my colleague also likes a good political squabble. However, there are some issues that should not be politicized, but we understand that too. We must bear that in mind.
We, Quebeckers, Canadians, the citizens of planet Earth, are unfortunately being forced to deal with Mr. Putin's Russia and its aggression. Indeed, the experts knew this was coming. Some sounded the alarm at the time, during the events in Crimea. It happened in the Donbass as well, but did we really think we would ever see this in our lifetime, that is, the return of a traditional war like 73 years ago? The answer is no.
That is why we must always bear in mind, as the hon. member so rightly said, that the men and women who wear the uniform risk their lives doing so, and we must think of them and of all humanity. Let us leave the political bickering to other issues.
276 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 4:30:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today's debate is a very serious one. Canadians want to shed light on the events that took place in February after the government did nothing for three weeks.
This committee will shed light on this matter. This is supposed to be a non-partisan parliamentary committee. What is unfortunate is that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons came out swinging in his speech, accusing the Conservatives of partisanship, when that could not be farther from the truth. We must conduct a neutral and objective review of the events that took place.
Why is the government taking such a partisan stance on a matter that demands non-partisanship?
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:34:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal government, we never considered invoking the extreme measures act. The thought never even crossed our minds.
I would like to once again remind the member that this kind of dubious association is inappropriate, especially in such a delicate situation with security implications. Let us do our best to set partisanship aside, even though we may sometimes be tempted to go there.
I would remind the House that, during the crisis the member referred to, nobody on this side of the House suggested using the extreme measures act as the government is doing now.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:33:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is very passionate when we talk about fairness in politics. This is what we ought to do right now. When there is a crisis, I know it is not very easy, especially for me, to put aside any partisanship. However, folks, what we have to address today right now is a health crisis. If we want to work together, we need to put aside our partisanship and especially not make any amalgames, as we say in French.
Please work all together for all Canadians.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
