House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 60% of the vote.
Foreign Affairs March 9th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, the situation of Haitians in the Dominican Republic has been receiving attention for some time now. Abuse is taking place in the streets. There have been injustices at sugar cane plantations. Thousands of people are expected to be deported.
Could the Conservative government tell the House whether there have been discussions with the Dominican and Haitian authorities? Furthermore, does the government expect Canada to play a role in protecting human rights there?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns February 27th, 2015
With regard to government procurement: what are the details of all contracts for the provision of research or speechwriting services to Ministers since April 1, 2006, (a) providing for each such contract (i) the start and end dates, (ii) contracting parties, (iii) file number, (iv) nature or description of the work; and (b) providing, in the case of a contract for speechwriting, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) audience or event at which the speech was, or was intended to be, delivered?
Canada Revenue Agency February 26th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, the voluntary disclosure program targets taxpayers who come clean on their own, before the agency takes any steps. In those cases, the taxpayers pay their taxes, but are not subject to any penalties or prosecution.
The Canada Revenue Agency learned through a leak that 1,859 Canadians had hidden millions of dollars in Switzerland. That is not voluntary.
Why is the Canada Revenue Agency not imposing any penalties on those taxpayers who committed fraud, which is what it should do?
Business of Supply February 24th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, my colleague had two questions.
First, he talked about why there is a rush to do this. It is quite simple. The Supreme Court has said that Parliament has 12 months to do something, so why do we not start right now? The Supreme Court is not aware of the parliamentary agenda. It knows that in 12 months we are allowed to do our job. We can meet people to discuss the issue and have debates. I can also say that we are not going to start from scratch, because the Quebec legislature already had a debate like this, so why do we not use that?
Second, he talked about the letter he received from the doctor. We are MPs, but we would like to invite people, as we always do, to explain to us the difficulties in each area: health, finance, and everything. They would help us draw up legislation that will go across Canada and that will prevent such things.
Business of Supply February 24th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
As I said, I believe that this is an extremely important, complex and personal issue. It is important to do things this way, namely to have a committee and a nationwide debate. As he said, the committee will not be drafting the bill. However, it is important for the committee to hear from experts and individuals across the country so that we can come up with a bill quickly.
That is why we said in the motion that the government should not wait to start on this, because it has just 11 months left. We know the election is coming. We need to focus on this now and take a non-partisan approach to this debate.
Business of Supply February 24th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, first, I should say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.
I rise today to speak to the opposition motion moved by the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, my colleague, the hon. member for Papineau. This motion has two main provisions: that the House recognize the Supreme Court ruling on physician-assisted dying and that a special committee of the House be appointed immediately to consult with experts and with Canadians and present a legislative framework on which legislation on physician-assisted dying can be based.
On February 6, 2015, the highest court in the country handed down an historic decision. The ruling indicated that paragraph 241(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada, stating that every one who aids or abets a person to commit suicide is guilty of an indictable offence, and section 14, stating that no person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, will be invalidated 12 months after the February 6, 2015, ruling. These measures violate the right to life, liberty and security of the person guaranteed under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
My parliamentary colleagues and I have a duty here. At our best, we write laws worthy of the people who elected us. Each one of us is aware of how emotionally charged this sensitive issue is, regardless of our personal opinion. This issue is both sensitive and complex. It is very difficult to set legal parameters that can apply to a wide range of unimaginable scenarios. I am supporting this motion because it calls on Parliament to face this challenge. We have 11 months left to come up with a solution, and we will have to get around a number of obstacles in our parliamentary schedule, including, of course, the election, which will interrupt the legislative work of the House this fall.
I invite my colleagues not to waste one second because we have an enormous task ahead of us. Canadians deserve a solution that will protect their rights and reflect their values. That is what we can deliver if we get to work right away and do our best. That is why we were elected and that is what Canadians deserve.
The medical field is evolving in Canada. One only need step inside a hospital to know that the aging population is putting more and more pressure on the system. The data confirm the fact that Canadians are living longer than ever, and the baby boomers have already started retiring. This new reality is a testament to the success of medicine. The new generation of retirees is essentially in excellent health. The geriatric wards of hospitals are overflowing, but the number of seniors flocking to recreation centres and yoga studios is also growing. The challenge of an aging population is the result of our success. This makes it no less of a challenge. A new generation of seniors is making itself known. They will live longer and their bodies will age differently because of medical innovations.
Once they were members of the flamboyant rock and roll generation and the largest cohort of workers in our history, and now more of them than ever before need medical care. That is quite natural; however, it shows that the reality of health care, especially health care for the elderly, is constantly evolving because of the people of that generation. Their physiological needs and their medical needs have changed. The anticipated aging of the population will inevitably lead to an increase in the number of people with cancer, for example, and other illnesses. This is the context for the debate on physician-assisted death and, more broadly, the future of palliative care in Canada.
As is the case for many of my colleagues and many Canadians who have been in similar situations in their lives, I thought about this when my mother died. She had to have an operation on her foot and the family asked her to agree to the operation. There were complications and she was told by her doctor that she had no choice but to have her leg amputated. Given her suffering, we told our dear mother that it was her decision to make. She immediately told the doctors that she wanted to be buried with both of her legs. It was her decision to put an end to the treatment.
I also experienced a similar situation with my children's adoptive grandmother, Olyve Pelletier, who was on dialysis. Shortly before Christmas, she brought in my children and all of her family to tell them that she was going to stop her dialysis treatment. These two people who are very dear to me were able to make that choice because justice allowed them to do so.
I understood from those experiences that our decisions regarding palliative care must be guided by the rights and wishes of seniors. We must make dying with dignity a priority and limit suffering as much as possible. What is more, that is precisely the instruction received from the court.
Canada is in desperate need of a good palliative care system. The health care system is not prepared for the massive generation I just mentioned, which will soon need access to this type of care. The cracks are already growing. Fewer than 30% of Canadian seniors currently have access to the care they need. A new strategy, a federal leadership and Canada-wide co-operation are absolutely necessary if we want to continue to be proud of having the best health care system in the world.
I cannot help but think of my experience at the Quebec National Assembly as we take on this noble yet colossal task. A few years ago, public discourse was constantly and convincingly changing in Quebec. As we are seeing in the rest of the country today, the tides had been turning for some time in favour of new measures surrounding and allowing physician-assisted death. The premier at the time, Jean Charest, created a select committee very similar to the one called for in the motion we are debating today in Parliament.
Under the Canadian Constitution, the federal Parliament is responsible for criminal law. According to the Criminal Code, euthanasia and assisted suicide are criminal acts. However, it is up to the provinces to administer justice and enforce criminal law.
I remind members that this debate has already taken place in the Quebec National Assembly. It was a non-partisan debate, and party lines never came into play. We are asking that these measures be taken here.
I also want to congratulate my former colleagues in the Quebec National Assembly, in particular the chair of the committee, Maryse Gaudreault, from the Liberal Party of Quebec, and Véronique Hivon, from the Parti Québécois, who was the co-chair of the committee.
Since an election is impending, the Supreme Court is calling on us to immediately study this issue, which is what the motion calls for as well.
I once again congratulate the member for Papineau, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, for having the courage to move this motion and to call on the House to immediately address this issue.
The Economy February 23rd, 2015
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have already begun their election campaign at taxpayers' expense. Yesterday during the Oscars they were trumpeting their income splitting scheme, which will put more money in rich people's pockets.
In my riding, social housing units are closing for lack of funding. Infrastructure is crumbling before our eyes. The CBC, which they dislike, is being bled to death by their cuts.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are wasting money on election ads. Last week, they budgeted an extra $11 million.
When will the Conservative government start using taxpayers' money to serve Canadians?
Canada Revenue Agency February 19th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, a disturbing CFIB study has forced the Canada Revenue Agency to evaluate its own services. The study found that one-quarter of the agency's telephone answers were incorrect. Some employees even advised things that are illegal. Canadians who have followed that advice are being penalized. The agency itself admits that its communications are muddled and disorganized and lack professionalism.
When will the Conservative government finally take action, and what is the minister doing to replace the ombudsman, who stepped down eight months ago?
The Economy February 6th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, the budget for the building Canada fund for infrastructure dropped from $2 billion to $210 million this year. It has been cut by 90%. Retail stores are dropping like flies and the manufacturing sector has shed 400,000 jobs. These sectors need the infrastructure to be competitive and to create good jobs.
In addition to delaying the budget, the Prime Minister told us, on Tuesday in the House, that we are going through an economic crisis.
Is it true that we are in an economic crisis or did the Prime Minister make a mistake?
Government Advertising February 5th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are cutting 90% of infrastructure spending, yet they see no problem with spending $29 million on billboards. The Conservatives are cutting money for infrastructure, they are giving up to $2 billion to the wealthiest Canadian families, and they are unable to table a budget.
They have spent $29 million on billboards, and it is only February. Instead of governing, are the Conservatives already campaigning?