House of Commons Hansard #66 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was use.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Government AircraftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to that.

What I want to point out is that it is not only the issue of how our veterans are treated in our community, in terms of what they can get right now and the service changes they never asked for that are taking place, but also about the approach. How bad is it that the government did not even have the courage to actually consult those veterans? Shame on it for that.

Shame on the government for not even calling on the veterans to get their opinion first. It did not even have the backbone to do that.

Opposition Motion—Government AircraftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, I realize that this discussion has now gotten a little away from the motion, but I cannot resist the opportunity to join this discussion.

I am from Charlottetown, P.E.I., the only province in Canada that no longer has a district office. That district office is now staffed by a caseworker from Saint John, New Brunswick, who is there on a six-month contract. That is the situation.

Throughout this past week, the Confederation Bridge has been closed due to storms. The veterans in P.E.I. who were supposed to be getting personal attention in the past week have had none because there are no front-line workers. They have to come from another province.

I do not have a question, but I do have a comment directed at the person who asked the last question. Veterans are being drastically shortchanged, and that member is absolutely correct when he says so.

Opposition Motion—Government AircraftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have been noticing the weather and everything that has been going on, and I wish the member's community well during this difficult time.

The member is absolutely correct to point out that there are other factors that will influence the connection of veterans and services, extenuating circumstances that we cannot control. It is one of the reasons New Democrats will open those offices back up in 2015.

Opposition Motion—Government AircraftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the comments made by the member for Windsor West.

The member raised the issue of cutbacks to veterans' services. Earlier today, we had some Conservatives trying to avoid the issue of the misuse of government planes. They tried to tie it in as somehow being something that was appropriate for the military and because of that, veterans would be supporting this misuse of government aircraft.

I want to ask the member for Windsor West a question. I am certainly talking to veterans in my riding who are extremely upset, as I have never seen before, with the government. How does the member think veterans will react to knowing the government systematically misuses government planes at the same time it is cutting back on veterans' services?

Opposition Motion—Government AircraftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. It is almost like the Conservatives have come up from the ocean floor too fast and cannot think right.

It is impossible to try to understand their logic that the veterans would actually support this. This is a serious issue in terms of financing. What is interesting is the Conservatives have not even produced a report, study, or evaluation that shows that by closing the Windsor office, or other offices, they are actually going to save money. There has been no accountability whatsoever.

That is one of the reasons veterans are so upset. Not only was it insulting, at best, it was a back of a hand to the face when the Conservatives did not even consult veterans in the first place.

Opposition Motion—Government AircraftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

José Nunez-Melo NDP Laval, QC

Mr. Speaker, on May 2, 2011, when I was elected, I had to come to Ottawa right away to attend the training and orientation sessions for new members of Parliament.

Those few weeks of intensive training were very useful. What really stood out was the role that all members of Parliament must fulfill in their respective constituencies and here in the House of Commons. It became clear to me that the magic word was “integrity”.

I realize that all of us here, as elected representatives, are faced with all sorts of constraints and personal ethical problems when authorizing expenses or making choices as MPs. Integrity seems to be the obvious answer.

I also realize that individuals appointed as ministers have the budget of a department available to them and sometimes must make choices and authorize expenses. There are more and more constraints. However, integrity must always guide our choices.

What is worse, when an individual becomes prime minister, that person must act with the utmost integrity. Otherwise, that individual could easily be criticized for misconduct. If the individual starts to make choices and approves certain expenditures because of a lack of judgment or a political agenda, and that results in poor decisions, he or she must answer for it.

All of that to say, I was surprised and disappointed to hear the news that motivated our party to look into this issue today in order to manage or direct the use of certain resources that are meant for use by elected officials.

I understand that the Department of National Defence manages the Challenger. The department likely receives specific instructions from the Prime Minister's Office about having a certain plane travel with certain resources—such as pilots, for example—or about fuel, time on the tarmac, aircraft maintenance and so on. All of that is paid for by taxpayers.

It is even more disturbing that this is coming specifically from the Prime Minister, who fiercely attacked the practices of previous governments, such as the Liberals during the sponsorship scandal.

That surprises me, and I am honestly disappointed to see how easily integrity can be tainted when an individual does a favour for a friend or someone close.

I had to laugh because I remember an expression my grandmother used to use when I was very young: “If you need something, always try to reciprocate. Never ask for a favour.” Why? It is because a favour is priceless and it is very difficult to refuse to reciprocate when someone has done you a favour. Personally, I did away with favours a long time ago. That is what everyone should do, from the Prime Minister right down to the last MP in the House.

In terms of the arguments I have heard today about the motion we brought forward, that National Defence should have a more suitable and legitimate procedure for the use of aircraft, the Challenger in this case, I have no idea. Reporters never paid attention to the use of those famous planes in the Liberal government's time. However, it seems to me to be very much the same thing, as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine explained so well.

She mentioned that we should look at other important factors, not just travel costs, because they are not the crux of the issue. It is not about going through the expenses; it is about knowing why they approved the use of taxpayers' resources for partisan matters or for other things that have nothing to do with the functions of government.

I was surprised to hear the comments from my esteemed colleague from Oak Ridges—Markham. He was trying to muddy the debate with arguments that made no sense. In addition, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, for whom I have the greatest respect, also tried to muddy the debate by accusing our party of having incurred bizarre expenses for satellite offices, among other things.

I am proud to say that our caucus is a model of integrity. None of the claims they are making are true. They will see how things are. They cannot act without integrity and then claim to be calling for more transparency in members' expenses. I do not agree with that.

Why do we have to move a motion to manage the Prime Minister's travel in an aircraft that belongs to Canadians and is operated by a major department, the Department of National Defence?

We already know what once happened with the current Minister of Justice. He was also the target of a lot of attacks because he used a helicopter for personal reasons. That is unacceptable.

I believe the motion makes sense, because, if someone cannot do something, it should come from the House of Commons.

Opposition Motion—Government AircraftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was really moved by the story of the member opposite's grandmother who told him he should never accept favours. I recall that during the 2011 election, CUPW used its resources to contact every person who worked in a post office, letter carriers, et cetera, encouraging them to vote for the NDP. That, to me, constitutes a favour.

What has the NDP done, now that it is the official opposition, in return for that favour?

Opposition Motion—Government AircraftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

José Nunez-Melo NDP Laval, QC

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, I do not consider this a favour. The definition of favour is different than that. I do not think it has anything to do with what happened in a post office.

Honestly, a lot of Laval residents come to my office and ask me why we are allowing the current government to make cuts and make decisions about certain allowances, budgets and grants without slapping its wrist. The reason is simple, and in 2015, these people will have the chance to unseat the Conservatives, and they will see what a good government is.

Opposition Motion—Government AircraftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the search and rescue helicopter that ultimately picked up the minister. It is a great issue in showing where the government has really made a mess of a situation. I concur 100% with the member on that and think he will find the record showing that both Liberals and New Democrats were one in opposition to that issue because it was an abuse.

The member referred to the New Democrat caucus as a model of integrity. In this regard, could he reflect on what the leader of his party has done about the abuse of mail allegations regarding his satellite office, and does he believe that is proper for the leader of the official opposition to do? How does he justify using public tax dollars for that massive $2 million mailing to 30 ridings, which, from what I understand, the NDP does not even hold?

Opposition Motion—Government AircraftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

José Nunez-Melo NDP Laval, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the two points raised by my colleague from Winnipeg North. I want to point out that integrity begins with the member. When someone is minister, that person must show even more integrity, and when that person is prime minister, even more still. The member understands.

The second point is that we truly represent integrity. I remember that in late 2012, when we were still on budget 2011-12, the Ottawa Citizen listed the names of the 10 MPs who had spent the least out of their budget. I was on the list, and that proves everything.

Opposition Motion—Government AircraftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

It being 5:16 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Opposition Motion—Government AircraftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Opposition Motion—Government AircraftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Opposition Motion—Government AircraftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Opposition Motion—Government AircraftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those opposed will please say nay.

Opposition Motion—Government AircraftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Opposition Motion—Government AircraftBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #94

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I declare the motion defeated.

Response to Question No. 176PrivilegeGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Fundy Royal New Brunswick

Conservative

Rob Moore ConservativeMinister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add to the initial response by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to Thursday's question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Avalon in relation to the answer he received to his written Question No. 176.

First, I would like to challenge his question of privilege on the ground that he did not raise it at the earliest opportunity. The response to which he takes exception was provided to the House on March 6, 2014. While I can see that there was a two-week adjournment shortly thereafter, the hon. member then waited until the fourth sitting day after the March break, or three full calendar weeks after his question was answered, before coming forward with his question of privilege. In short, the member's question of privilege should fail on this ground alone.

Nonetheless, I would like to address the substantive issues he raised. The hon. member for Avalon has claimed that there is a prima facie case of privilege here based on his assertion that he, in the performance of his duties, has been intentionally interfered with, obstructed, and impeded. Yet the hon. member has not indicated which duties have been so impeded or in which manner he has been impeded in relation to those duties. This is simply a matter of being dissatisfied with the response that was provided.

Last week, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons quoted from page 522 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, on this matter. I want to add to this a few precedents.

Mr. Milliken, at page 3,255 of the Debates of February 6, 2003 said:

...as hon. members know, there is no provision in our rules for the Speaker to review the content of responses, nor would that be appropriate. In this regard I would simply state that any member not satisfied with the response provided by the government may raise supplemental questions either orally or in written form.

In his second ruling that day, Mr. Speaker, your predecessor said, at page 3,256:

It is not within the powers of the Chair to judge the adequacy of an answer.

Finally, Madam Speaker Sauvé said, in her ruling at page 12,836 of the Debates of November 17, 1981:

Furthermore, the quality of the answer as given is not generally within the responsibility of the Speaker, who should not be asked to pass judgment on the substance of an answer to a question, be it oral or written.

Before wrapping up, let me respond to the member's assertion that there has been a change in practice with questions answered by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The hon. member told the House in his submissions:

I have placed a past order paper question concerning projects funded in part or in full for my riding through ACOA. On each occasion, the minister has provided a detailed list of all approved projects within the riding. This just is not the case.

I have a response from 2011:

Insofar as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency...is concerned, with regard to grants and contributions in the riding of Avalon from April 1, 2011 to December 10, 2012, ACOA does not track approved projects by federal ridings. Information on projects approved by ACOA in Newfoundland and Labrador can be found on the Agency's website, by search criteria and by geographic location....

Then it gives the website. So the hon. member's assertion that there has been some change is patently false.

The hon. member told the House that he has placed a past order paper question, and he was provided with a detailed list of all projects approved within the riding. Later in his arguments, he indicated, “The question I asked, in 2010, was answered and the information was provided”. If members were to check the records of the House for the third session of the 40th Parliament, which captures the year 2010, they would see that the hon. member for Avalon asked about a dozen written questions that calendar year. Two of them are identified as relating to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

On March 5, 2010, he asked written Question No. 91, which requested:

...projects approved for funding in Atlantic Canada...broken down by the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador....

The government's response, in the range of 600 pages, was a table outlining approved projects, which were largely coded by province.

That same day, the member also asked written Question No. 92, which requested:

With regard to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) and, more specifically, the Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) Program administered by ACOA in Atlantic Canada:...(d) what were the names, addresses and submission dates of the applicants submitting an application...from the constituency of Avalon...?

While the government's response did include a one-page chart with specific projects, it is important to note the following qualifications that were in the body of that response. Firstly, the answer advised that:

...the names, addresses and submission dates of the applicants submitting an application...on or near the constituency of Avalon are included in the attached list....

Later, the nuance was followed up with this line:

It should be noted that the Agency tracks RInC projects by geographic location, and not by electoral district.

Again, we have the exact same response that we do not track by electoral district.

Let us come forward to the present day and written Question No. 176, which asked:

...what applications have been received from the riding of Avalon...including (i) the specific projects that were approved or rejected in each fiscal year...?

In response, I answered, and this is at page 3580 of the Debates:

...with regard to applications received from the riding of Avalon...ACOA does not track projects by federal ridings. Information on projects approved by ACOA in Newfoundland and Labrador can be found on the agency’s website.

As I said, nothing has changed. ACOA did not and does not track projects by riding.

The one-pager prepared in response to Question No. 92, probably because it was a more narrowly crafted question, seems to have been a courtesy extended to the hon. member for Avalon by doing a quick search of projects that were “on or near” his own riding. This is quite some distance from the four-year fishing expedition he presented in Question No.176.

This particular fishing expedition was even broader than the past one, because he was seeking information on all applications received, including those that were rejected. With respect to the latter category, I understand that answering it would have required the agency to figure out who might have been from Avalon and from there contact each one of them to see if they would agree to allow their personal information to be divulged in order to follow the Privacy Act and the principles of the Access to Information Act. There is simply no reasonable way of accomplishing this within the 45-day deadline he requested under the Standing Orders.

In my answer, the hon. member for Avalon is directed to the agency's website for a list of all approved projects in Newfoundland and Labrador. From there, the hon. member can generate a list, just like the one he would have had as part of the 600-page response he got in 2010, from the website.

Surely, the hon. member knows his constituency well enough to be able to assess from this comprehensive list which of the projects are located in his own riding and which fall into one of the six other ridings in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In conclusion, the hon. member for Avalon has not raised his issue in a timely manner. He has not given any indication as to how he has been impeded. He has not argued anything here other than dissatisfaction with the response provided. Finally, he has blurred the distinctions between the 2010 questions he cited and his most recent question.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe you can easily rule that there is no prima facie case of privilege to be found here.

Response to Question No. 176PrivilegeGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I thank the hon. Minister of State for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency for this additional information. I am sure the Speaker will take it under advisement. I know he is taken up with the question at the moment, and I am sure he will be back to the House relatively soon in terms of where that would stand.

Pan-Canadian Palliative and End-of-life Care StrategyPrivate Members' Business

April 1st, 2014 / 6:05 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should establish a Pan-Canadian Palliative and End-of-life Care Strategy by working with provinces and territories on a flexible, integrated model of palliative care that: (a) takes into account the geographic, regional, and cultural diversity of urban and rural Canada; (b) respects the cultural, spiritual and familial needs of Canada’s First Nation, Inuit and Métis people; and (c) has the goal of (i) ensuring all Canadians have access to high quality home-based and hospice palliative end-of-life care, (ii) providing more support for caregivers, (iii) improving the quality and consistency of home and hospice palliative end-of-life care in Canada, (iv) encouraging Canadians to discuss and plan for end-of-life care.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise in this House representing the people of Timmins—James Bay. Tonight I am particularly proud to represent the New Democratic Party as we bring forward a motion that we believe is essential for the development of long-term planning for health in this country, which is a pan-Canadian strategy for palliative care.

I am very proud to be here this evening to move this motion on behalf of the New Democratic Party. We are asking the federal government and Canada's Parliament to establish a pan-Canadian strategy, ensure access to palliative care, and work with the provinces and territories so that all levels of government can develop a standard of care that ensures access to quality palliative care.

To begin, I would like to make note of a few things for the people watching across Canada.

I would like to thank the medical leaders, medical organizations, front-line service providers who are serving people in need, and the social workers, pharmacists, nurses and doctors, for the support that we received. I would also like to thank members of the various spiritual communities of Canada who have supported the New Democrats in this motion.

On a personal note, I would like to mention that my late brother-in-law John King, who was a close friend and a brilliant young man, lost his life much too early to cancer. After the 2008 election, I came home and spent the last few nights with John at Perram House, in Toronto.

Perram House was an extraordinary palliative care centre. At the time, I thought it was the norm. I thought that when Canadians became sick, there were Perram Houses everywhere. It was after Perram House closed, in the city of Toronto where my brother-in-law was dying, that I realized there was a lack of good quality palliative care beds.

Certainly there is good quality palliative care in hospitals. However, with regard to community-centred, spiritually centred, communal-familiar centred care, it made me realize that across this country we do not have a standard forum for ensuring that families and individuals have the support they need.

I would also like to thank the incredible work of the all-party committee. The Parliament of Canada is known as a relatively toxic place at most times, but members of all parties came together on this vital issue and worked hard. I would like to recognize the members of the Conservative, Liberal, and New Democratic parties who worked on the study and wanted to bring forward to Parliament the need for us to establish this pan-Canadian strategy on palliative care. I believe that the motion I am bringing forward on behalf of the New Democratic Party is carrying forward the work of this all-party committee.

One of its key recommendations is that the committee strongly urges that the federal government re-establish a palliative care secretariat for the sake of developing and implementing a national palliative and end-of-life care strategy. In honour of the work that my colleagues in the other parties and New Democrats did on that committee, we are bringing forward that motion tonight.

There has been much discussion lately in the media. Many terms are being used on the issue of dying with dignity and what it means. People are grappling with very complex and emotional issues that touch all of us.

Tonight I would like to use the definition of palliative care that has been offered by the Canadian Medical Association.

The Canadian Medical Association tells us the following:

Palliative care is an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problems associated with a life-threatening illness. [It involves] the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification, assessment and treatment of pain and other physical, psychosocial, and spiritual symptoms.

We can see from the Canadian Medical Association's definition that palliative care is not just about dealing with someone in their final bleak hours. It is the notion of an integrated health strategy that is there for families in their homes. It is not just about the alleviation of suffering, but allowing the individual to have a higher quality of life than they might have otherwise had. It also assures support for the family, community members, and loved ones, who sometimes face an extremely traumatic time.

The fact that we are having this debate today at the end of the national health accord is very timely. The New Democrats believe, and have believed this since our founding and the days of Tommy Douglas, that the federal government has an important role to play, not in the delivery of service but in working with the provinces and territories to establish norms across this country.

If we look at the situation with an aging population and our increasingly frayed health care system, and with the end of the health accord and less and less money to be delivered to the regions, urban and rural, it becomes incredibly important to ensure that we have an integrated health care strategy.

What would the strategy look like? We know that Parliament played a role before. In 2007, the Conservative government cancelled the palliative care secretariat that had been established and was beginning to do work in terms of a national vision. We had an all-party committee that came back and said we needed a strategy.

However, what we are seeing across the country is a real patchwork of services. I believe there are only four provinces that even have a provincial strategy in place for palliative care. In some areas we see incredibly strong resources. For example, downtown Regina and Saskatoon have extraordinary services, but even in a city as big as the GTA or Montreal, we are dealing with a patchwork. In rural areas, sometimes it is almost non-existent.

There is a belief that somehow palliative care is done with volunteer money. That does not really understand its importance.

Let us look at the delivery of services in the rural regions. What I have seen in my own region is that when families do not have access to proper support, it causes immense stress to the patient. Many times I have dealt with this when people have come to my office. I have heard about an elderly woman trying to bathe her husband who is dying of cancer, but who has not been identified for palliative care. They are trying to get home support workers, who do extraordinary work.

The overall vision is that this is a palliative issue as opposed to just someone who needs home support. Too often the person ends up in the emergency room waiting for a bed. It is the locum or the emergency room doctor who has to tell them that they are actually suffering from an incurable illness, which can be very traumatic.

I have seen families almost torn apart because of the pressure. Someone has to stay home with the loved one. We know that in at least a quarter of the cases, Canadians have said that they have had to miss upwards of a month of work or have used personal savings to look after a loved one who has an incurable condition.

In areas where we have good palliative care, we can actually save about $8,000 to $10,000 per patient because they are not then being cared for in emergency wards and there is not the struggle to find beds, because there has been a whole approach.

In the rural northern Ontario region that I represent, the provincial allocation for palliative care for a region of more than 100 kilometres with three hospitals and about 20 communities is $70,000. What can $70,000 buy when one is delivering health care, when one has to do the audits and to ensure travel? That is not to say it is the only money.

The province, through its LHINS, has a pain management program, but it is not under the palliative program but through someone else, another organization that could be 200 kilometres or 400 kilometres away. They do good work as well, but it is not integrated. We have personal support workers, but they are not necessarily working under the palliative network.

To get that $70,000, the local organizations are supposed to raise $25,000. So they are already having to bring forward about a quarter of the money themselves. Meanwhile, there are numerous other agencies, all delivering fragments of the service, but if those fragments were put together into a cohesive whole there would be a better health outcome.

We can learn from each other in different parts of the country. This is a really important opportunity. We need to talk to the medical front line, the social workers and the people who are dealing with the sick and the aging. They understand that if we work together and worked on the models that work, we could learn from each other and deliver better outcomes.

There is clearly a need for this program across the country. Palliative care is excellent in some regions and virtually non-existent in others.

Quality palliative care means integrated care: home care, social services and medical care to help improve people's health, emotional and psychological support and support for families.

Currently, less than 30% of Canadians have access to quality palliative care. That is why New Democrats are asking the other parties to work with them to support this vision for a pan-Canadian strategy to help families and individuals facing this situation and to implement similar models in both rural and urban areas.

I believe this is a moment when all parliamentarians can come together in a positive way. We all have to face the death of a loved one. We have all faced it. We all have our own stories. These are moments in the life of a family that is at a crossroads, the closing of one chapter and the opening of another.

I remember when my grandfather died and the responsibilities that were transferred, the cultural roles, the leadership roles, and the spiritual roles that people play in a family when someone leaves and the next generation has to take those on. That is an extraordinary moment in the life of a family, but if it happens in a crisis unit, if it happens in an emergency ward, if it happens because some of the family members have to be out working in the oil patch and cannot get back to be there, the sense of guilt and anger can tear families apart or seriously damage the spiritual vitality of a family or community.

When there is a better model out there, one that saves money and that ensures better access for people, I think it is incumbent upon us to say, let us embrace this model and let us show what dying with dignity in 2014 should be about, to ensure that we have everything in place around the person, around the loved ones, around the families so that they can make that transition and so that we, as their family members and loved ones, will also be able to make that transition to the next level of our own communities.

I am hoping to get the full support of the members of Parliament. I am certainly counting on the members who did the extraordinary work on the palliative care committee. I think this is something on which we can all agree. I would ask my colleagues to work with us to support this motion and then begin to push for its full implementation.

From this Parliament, it is incumbent upon as well to begin this discussion in Canadian society. This is a common sense solution that is staring Canadians in the face. This is a discussion that we need as Canadians. It is a positive discussion. It is a discussion that brings people in to talk together, as opposed to leaving people on the outside.

I would like to think that out of this motion can begin a positive discussion across this country.

Pan-Canadian Palliative and End-of-life Care StrategyPrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Okanagan—Coquihalla B.C.

Conservative

Dan Albas ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his eloquent speech in the debate we are having today.

I know first hand that working through private members' business can be a very positive thing. With these kinds of initiatives we draw influence and inspiration from many Canadians right across this country. The question, therefore, that I have for the member tonight is whether there is some group that particularly helped craft the bill or inspired the member bring this topic to debate. Is there a particular person that he would like to mention, because I do know these things do not happen by our own efforts, nor probably even by the efforts of our staff alone? So I would like the member to answer in that capacity.

Pan-Canadian Palliative and End-of-life Care StrategyPrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned at the beginning my dear brother-in-law, John King, who died in his early forties. John was an economist, and he would say to me, “show me how this works”. What we saw at Perram House, while it existed, was that it is a great model. We can show that these are the systems that work. We came through something that in our family could have been very traumatic, but we were there, and we were there together.

I have been at the death of other loved ones when we have been standing in a hallway in an emergency ward. People are trying to come together as a family. The nurses are doing their jobs and saying, “Shush, there are other patients here”. People do not know where to go or where to sit, and they do not get to have their proper goodbyes.

There are phenomenal organizations across this country, grassroots organizations, front-line people, who have been calling us and sharing their stories. I had an amazing meeting with the Jewish Family & Child service in Toronto, which has a wonderfully integrated model for helping families spiritually and financially. They make sure that the family is supported.

If all members go back and talk within our ridings, we are going to meet the front-line people who do this every day.

Pan-Canadian Palliative and End-of-life Care StrategyPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for bringing forward this motion. It is a very important debate. I noticed that in the debate, he said that he hopes that all parliamentarians come together with this motion. I think that is really what we hope for.

I would like to ask more about the all-party committee. Canadians see in question period every day the partisanship, but there are many occasions when members of Parliament from all the parties in the House work together on an issue. This is a very good example of where that has happened.

I wonder if the member could tell us a bit about the all-party committee, why it came together, and the work they undertook.