Dianne Lynn Watts

[Infrastructure, May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this private member's motion today.

Communities across the country are looking for a clear, defined infrastructure plan from their federal government. Currently, there are many mixed messages coming from the government on infrastructure funding, and even more uncertainty as to when municipalities will actually see this funding. This motion from the member for Halifax does nothing but cast further uncertainty on the future of infrastructure in Canada.

Let me start by first addressing the beginning portion of this motion.

I would like to first say that we are all concerned with greenhouse gases. We are all looking forward to the plan from the minister on climate change. One of the things the former government did was implement, in 2009, the green infrastructure fund. We are all on the same page.

However, we have to drill down just a little further. As part of the phase one of the Liberal infrastructure spending, the Minister of Infrastructure's top priorities for the next three years were road repair, rehabilitation, and maintenance. With this motion, phase one of this plan will not be able to proceed. Placing mandatory GHG emission screens on municipalities will do nothing to speed up the infrastructure funding approvals nor the construction. That is something the Liberal government claims is a top priority for them, and it is certainly a top priority for many of us.

Instead, the motion will place an extra burden on small and rural communities across Canada. These communities will now have to find additional funds to go through this process. Furthermore, many Canadian municipalities already have their own environmental screens in place. The FCM released a report early in 2016. Over 90% of the surveyed Canadian municipalities either already had or were developing policies and plans to mitigate climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The additional screening required by this motion will now mean that municipalities will have to spend more taxpayers' money on something they are already doing, before their projects are even approved. This does not take into consideration the administration costs that would potentially be burdened upon communities.

However, what is even more troubling about this specific motion is the second portion. This states that projects that mitigate climate change will be chosen over other infrastructure projects. This is contrary to the Liberals' own policy. It directly contradicts the Minister of Infrastructure's own priorities, as I stated, of road repairs, maintenance, and rehabilitation, which is the priority over the next three years.

This would mean that Canadian cities would not, and could not, build new roads, bridges, or upgrade any highways, roads like those spoken about earlier by a member, to get to isolated communities, like the east side road to connect those people in rural communities. These projects are vital to the Canadian economy, but they would not meet the definition of mitigating climate change.

Furthermore, I would be curious to find out how this motion fits in with the larger context of the Liberals' pan-Canadian national climate change framework, which we hope to see the details of. We do not know if this motion is a piece of that plan or not a piece of that plan.

This private member's motion is really counter to what is being put forward by the Minister of Infrastructure. Also, in supporting the vital trade corridors between provinces and, in fact, between Canada and the United States, we are talking about bridges. This motion jeopardizes those road repairs, buildings, and it will certainly impact, as I stated earlier, small and rural communities and their access to their share of infrastructure funding.

There is no doubt in anybody's mind that we need to be protecting our environment, and that is critical for this generation and for future generations. However, we also have to have the responsibility to ensure that we have a strong economy, we are creating jobs, and we are building those trade corridors. We also need to ensure that we have fiscal prudence, responsibility in spending, and really well-thought-out public policy.

With the massive amount of debt that is projected to be added to Canada's debt load, I feel that passing this motion would just add to that.

We need a comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is no doubt about that. We are patiently awaiting the pan-Canadian national climate change plan from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. I do believe that this would be within that context in some form, but again, I am not sure if it is isolated or part of it. That was unclear.

As it stands right now, I will not be supporting the bill.

[Infrastructure, May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, first the Liberals removed the requirement for the P3 screen, then they transferred responsibility from the Minister of Finance to the Minister of Infrastructure, and now they introduced Bill C-15, which gives the infrastructure minister the power to sell off shares and assets of PPP Canada.

Something here does not add up. Are the Liberals intending to shut down PPP Canada and sell off its assets in order to pay for their out of control spending?

[Infrastructure, May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives renewed the PPP Canada funding by providing $1.25 billion over five years as part of the new building Canada plan. Infrastructure projects worth over $100 million were required to go through a P3 screen to maximize the value of taxpayer dollars. But late last year, the Minister of Infrastructure announced that this screening requirement would be removed. Why are the Liberals getting rid of all the taxpayer safeguards?

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, we have good legislation and bad legislation, so depending on the legislation and the amendments to the legislation, we will look at how it protects or does not protect the vulnerable.

There is still a lot of work to do and there are amendments that have to be put in place.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, when the time frame was handed down by the Supreme Court I believe there were preliminary consultations that had begun at that point. I also know that there was an election. During the election, I believe a lot of the work ceased because of the election. Then it was incumbent on the new government to continue developing the legislation.

I go back to the Quebec example that was six years in the making. I go back to other countries that have dealt with this issue, and it was 10 years in the making. Even if there were a continuation of that work for 16 months, it would still not be adequate.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, fundamentally, our responsibility is to protect the most vulnerable. There are measures within the legislation that do not allow for that. We have been mandated by the court to provide legislation, and it should be the very best legislation that can possibly be put forward. I do not think that we have had adequate consultation with and input from many sectors across the country. I believe it is premature to be at the place where we are right now.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this issue, as many of my colleagues have done throughout the day.

It is most certainly a difficult issue that is faced by many individuals and society at large. Like many of my colleagues, I have had many conversations with my constituents and medical health professionals, with doctors who are in support and doctors who are not. The issues and concerns vary with each and every sector. I have heard concerns around protecting the rights of doctors who do not want to participate. I have heard from constituents who adamantly oppose any type of legislation for moral reasons. I have also heard from constituents who have gone through very difficult times and have had family members who suffered greatly. They support legislation being in place.

However, the significantly short amount of time that has been allocated by the court has indeed posed a challenge on many fronts. While some consultations have been undertaken in some communities in some ridings, there has just not been enough time to engage Canadians across the country in a fulsome debate. In fact, in Quebec, it took six years to go through the process. As one of the options, we should request from the court additional time to really address these complex issues, to engage Canadians far and wide, and to get input from many different sides that were not able to come to the committee or appear as witnesses.

I have a great amount of respect for the members in the House who have worked on the committee. I know it was not an easy task for them. I also respect all the members who have really struggled with this issue on many fronts. However, to rush to develop legislation is really of great concern to me.

I am pleased to see the recommendations from our dissenting report that spoke to the issues of mature minors, persons with mental health issues, and advance directives. Some were implemented and some were not. However, there are still issues around conscience protection for physicians and health care professionals.

The protection of the vulnerable really must be a core foundational aspect of the legislation and framework, as eloquently put by my colleague, the previous speaker. Protection for doctors and health care professionals who do not want to participate must be imbedded within the legislation and not within the preamble.

I want to share a story that really speaks to the issue. I know of a young nurse who just graduated and who recently applied for a nursing position. The interviewer asked her if she would be able to inject a patient who requested to die. The young nurse, who had just graduated, said no, that was something she could not do. Needless to say, the young nurse was not hired. I share this story because within the legislation we need to protect individuals who do not want to participate.

We have failed Canadians as it relates to end-of-life care and providing a robust palliative care system and hospice support. We must institute high-quality palliative care in every community in every province across the country.

I received a handwritten letter from one of my constituents. I was not in this place at the time.

She wrote:

Did you know in June 1995 the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide advised the government make palliative care programs a priority in the restructuring of the Health Care System;

That was Bill C-545, an act respecting the provision of continuing care to Canadians, a private member's bill. She also noted that only 30% of Canadians have access to palliative care.

She went on to say:

Can you assure that Palliative Care will be available to all citizens of Canada before these same citizens are offered medical assistance in dying?

This is very poignant because, given the legislation that we are discussing and where we are going with it, we need to have a national strategy on palliative care. We need to look at the end-of-life care as a process toward death. This is part of the overall continuum of care. We do not do that now. I think it would be prudent for us to have those measures and plans in place because it is about dealing with people who are coming to the end of their life.

As I said earlier, I believe that a robust palliative care system should be implemented. I also believe that a psychiatrist or social worker needs to be part of the assessment process, and that a palliative care consultation should be undertaken prior to moving to doctor-assisted suicide.

The health minister stated in the House yesterday that $3 billion would be dedicated to palliative care over four years. I was pleased to hear those comments. However, it was clearly an afterthought because that amount was not included in the budget, nor was there any mention of palliative care or hospice care. This is a fundamental flaw that should be rectified immediately.

In light of this legislation, we need to move very quickly to implement a national strategy on palliative care. This is a very complex issue. I certainly have many concerns on a number of fronts with this legislation. We need strict protections embedded in the legislation regarding the protection of conscience and the right to have access to palliative care. I stress that these amendments must be embedded within the legislation.

Of most concern is the possibility in the preamble of including mature minors and those with mental health illness at a future date. While the courts have mandated the development of legislation, it has most certainly not allowed the appropriate time to have a thorough discussion with Canadians across the country. This issue is not one that should be rushed. It deserves thoughtful, respectful consultation and debate with everyone.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague bringing forward a number of the issues he outlined. I am wondering if he feels that had there been more time given by the courts, some of these issues could have been addressed and the legislation could have been more robust.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, again we hear about the $3 billion for palliative care. We have yet to find it in the budget. There is some language around home care, but there is no identification of palliative care. Could the member please clarify that?

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her gracious words in describing what she has gone through. As she said, many people have gone through those tough times.

I have a question. The minister, yesterday, stood in the House and stated that there were $3 billion for palliative care, yet there was nothing in the budget. I am wondering if the member can explain where those dollars will come from and how they will be allocated.