Claude DeBellefeuille

[Petitions, March 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The interpreter has told us that he cannot do his job because of static.

[Intergovernmental Affairs, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the word of the day in Ottawa is “no”. They are saying no to sole jurisdiction for Quebec over immigration, but they are also saying no to the right to opt out with full compensation from the federal dental care program. They are saying no to the right to opt out of the federal pharmacare program with full compensation. They are saying no to advance requests for medical assistance in dying. Even in health care, where Quebec has full authority, the answer is no. Even for programs created by Quebec, the answer is no.

Why not respect Quebec's expertise instead of making it harder or even impossible to receive care?

[150th anniversary of Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield, February 26th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to draw attention to the 150th anniversary of the City of Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield.

Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield is marking 150 years of history, 150 years of pride, 150 years of generations of locals enjoying life on the shores of Baie Saint‑François. They are good people who know the secret to the famous Valleyfield grill seasoning. They are hard-working people who never pass up an opportunity to celebrate.

Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield is also marking 150 years of solidarity, a legacy handed down by the workers of Montreal Cotton, the Sisters of Bon‑Conseil and all the others.

This 150th anniversary is an opportunity to remember how great it is to live on our island.

I would like to thank the organizing committee, co-chaired by Denis Lapointe and Renée Demers, and all municipal employees for putting together a diverse program to honour our city and its talents. This year, we are eating, exploring, playing, dancing and celebrating Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield.

I encourage the good people of Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield to enjoy the festivities, and I wish them a happy 150th anniversary.

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I will stay calm because I am not allowed to say what is on my mind. It would be unparliamentary.

I want to say something about the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. There was unanimous consensus on recommendation 21, which I will read, “That the Government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to allow for advance requests following a diagnosis of a serious and incurable medical condition[,] disease, or disorder leading to incapacity.” This is not coming from me. This comes from a joint committee made up of MPs from every party in the House and several senators. That was said in February 2023.

I was a social worker in Quebec. Children have never, ever been euthanized in Quebec. That is not what we are talking about.

I think that the member did not listen to my speech. What I said was that not everyone who asks for medical assistance in dying gets it, and those who do have to go through a thorough and professional clinical process first.

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear from my colleague who understands the consensus in Quebec. Now, I will ask him to convince his political party to support the Bloc Québécois amendment, which proposes amending the Criminal Code so that service providers cannot be prosecuted for providing MAID to people who made advance requests and obtained that service. I encourage him to speak up and to be a leader in his party to convince his colleagues.

Just because the other health ministers from the other provinces and territories are not ready does not mean that Quebec is obligated to move as slowly as them. Quebec is ready to help people who are suffering who want MAID and who request it.

I will say it again. I do not know if there are any anglophone MPs here who are wearing their earpieces, but just because a person requests medical assistance in dying does not mean that they will get it.

[Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62, February 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my speaking time with the hon. member for Shefford.

I rise today to speak about a topic I am passionate about. I am a social worker. I spent my career supporting seniors who wished to live at home, as well as seniors living in long-term care centres. I could say that I will be giving a speech, but it is more like a first-hand account, because this morning, quite frankly, I could not believe my ears. I could not believe the outrageous remarks I was hearing on the issue of medical assistance in dying.

I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois has a humanist vision of medical assistance in dying. Our focus is on the importance of the individual's right to dignity, to free and informed consent and, most of all, to self-determination. That means that I am the best person to decide what will happen to me, because I am making a free and informed choice.

I want to tell the House a story, but I should mention that it is not a very pleasant one. As I said, I am a social worker, and I have kept up my membership in my professional association, because I think that is very important. Today, I am addressing my colleagues as both a member of Parliament and a social worker.

I worked with an elderly lady in a long-term care home. She had multiple sclerosis. She had been living there for years. Slowly, little by little, she lost her autonomy, until all she could do was move her head, swallow, and move two fingers. It was just enough to operate her wheelchair. She asked for medical assistance in dying.

As a social worker, it was my job to professionally assess whether her request was free and informed and whether she was asking for care in a free and informed way. I did my duty. I went to university, so I have clinical knowledge that enabled me to examine her condition, professionally evaluate her and use my clinical judgment to assess the request from this woman who had been suffering for years, confined to her bed.

Imagine what it is like for someone who has to stay in bed all day long, having people turn them over so they do not get bedsores. Imagine what it feels like for someone who can no longer go to the bathroom, who is incontinent, who can no longer scratch their own forehead and has to ring for an attendant to come scratch it for them because it is itchy.

The woman I am talking about made a request for medical assistance in dying. Her request was denied because the members of the multidisciplinary team concluded that this person was not in a condition to make a truly free decision, that she was depressed and that it was not the right time for her to take that step.

When I hear our Conservative friends say all someone has to do is ask and they will get an injection the next day and die, I can tell my colleagues that, as a health professional and a social worker, it is tough to listen to that. As a member of Parliament, I am ashamed, because it is bad to spread misinformation. Just because someone asks for medical assistance in dying does not mean they will get it. There are tons of people around these patients who assess their state of mind and their disease. Together, they decide whether that person can request medical assistance in dying and receive it. We live in a democratic country. People can submit requests. That does not mean anything goes and requests will automatically be granted. This morning, I decided I had better listen to the speeches from my office, because I would have had trouble facing the members who were saying outrageous things.

The same goes for people with disabilities. It seems like some members believe that people with disabilities are not smart, that they cannot make decisions and that they need to be guided. I am sorry, maybe I am getting emotional, but I have profound respect for human beings, and human beings are capable of making decisions about themselves.

I want to reiterate that just because someone requests MAID does not mean they will receive it. The professionals surrounding these people are not naive. They are educated people: doctors, nurses, social workers and occupational therapists. Care providers are professionals.

MAID is a lengthy process in Quebec. Sometimes, people make the request too late. They lose their ability to consent again to the process, and they miss their chance. They suffer because they lost the cognitive capacity to consent one more time to medical assistance in dying.

We agree that today we are discussing a very sensitive and complex issue. There are some members in the House who are really lowering the level of the discussion and debate. Frankly, I feel sick about this, and I repeat that I am ashamed of what I heard this morning.

The Bloc Québécois’s proposal is balanced. We know that Quebec passed a law and wants to allow people to make advance requests. What does that mean? If the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie received a diagnosis of early dementia or Alzheimer’s around the age of 45, he could decide that he did not want to die in a long-term care home, hunched over and completely dependent on others. He would then decide to draft his advance requests and trust those around him so that he could receive medical assistance in dying when all the criteria he described were met. In Quebec we are ready to do that.

Furthermore, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, which analyzed the issue for a year, reached the same conclusion, namely that it makes sense. A person who is mentally sound, who has been assessed and wants to make their advance request should be able to do so and, above all, to obtain it.

The bill we have here is very timid. It lacks ambition and political courage. We are abandoning people who, at this very moment, would like to use advance requests because they are suffering from a form of dementia, a kind of incurable neurocognitive disease. They see the end coming, and it is terrible, because it comes with atrocious suffering and complete loss of autonomy.

If I received a diagnosis of early onset dementia and no longer recognized my children and my grandchildren, if I was aggressive, if I defecated in my underwear and did not stop walking all day long because I kept wandering and had no life left, I would want my children to say that I met all the requirements and to ask that they let me go because I would be ready and those were my wishes. In Quebec, this has been recognized. Unfortunately, because this government will not listen to Quebec, it will not allow practitioners, doctors, nurses and social workers to do their work. They could face legal action launched by the family or by a third party. What is going to happen? People in Quebec are really going to suffer because here, in the House, people lack courage and do not want to support the one province that is ready to move to another level. When it comes to advance requests, we are ready.

We in the Bloc Québécois nonetheless agreed that we had not necessarily fully explored the issue of mental disorders and that we needed an extra year to reflect and lay the groundwork. However, three years is too long. Society is moving ahead faster than legislators. Members of the House need to understand they are abandoning people who will suffer.

My grandmother was religious. At age 91, she was suffering terribly and was about to die. She refused morphine because, in her religion, those who suffer go to heaven. She refused care, and she suffered. It was a choice. We respected her choice to suffer so she could go straight to heaven, even though we knew full well she would. She believed she had to suffer. We respected that. She refused all morphine injections. Today, we have made progress. People have the right to choose how they want to leave this earth. I repeat, just because people ask for medical assistance in dying does not mean they will receive it.

Today, I am making a plea from my heart. For everyone who will need it, let us listen to the consensus of Quebec society. Let us listen to Quebeckers, who are saying that Canada can take the time to reflect, but that Quebec is ready and wants permission to do it properly and legally.

[News Media Industry, February 9th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, Ottawa needs to do something while there are still jobs to be saved.

An emergency fund is needed to prevent further cuts. A payroll tax credit is needed for electronic media. A tax credit is needed for advertisers in traditional media. What is needed is an increase in federal advertising investments in traditional media along with a decrease in Liberal investments in Meta.

What we need most of all is a minister who takes action instead of just blaming the Conservatives. When will she take action?

[News Media Industry, February 9th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the media crisis has once again swept away a part of our news media and a part of our democracy.

Bell is laying off 4,800 employees. This comes on the heels of more than 500 job cuts at Quebecor and 600 at CBC/Radio-Canada. The entire industry has been imploding for years with no meaningful response by the federal government.

Bill C‑11 is having no apparent impact because the CRTC is making zero progress on the regulatory framework. Bill C‑18 is all well and good, and we will happily accept Google's millions, but the job cuts continue.

When is the government going to take action?

[Justice, February 8th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, Canada can continue to think about it, but Quebec is ready.

The Quebec National Assembly is unanimously calling for the federal government to amend the Criminal Code so that Quebec can move forward with advance requests. Ottawa has the moral duty to grant Quebec's unanimous request.

Canadians have the right to take more time to think about this, but they do not have the right to make Quebeckers suffer needlessly for years. Will the government legislate so that Quebec can authorize advance requests?

[Justice, February 8th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is a pioneer in Canada when it comes to compassion for people who are suffering. It was the first to implement medical assistance in dying. It is only natural that it is still ahead of the curve today.

Quebec is ready to authorize advance requests for persons suffering from serious, incurable neurocognitive diseases. Quebec's legislation was adopted eight months ago, and those who are suffering have waited long enough. Will the government amend the Criminal Code so that Quebec can move forward with advance requests?