Francis Scarpaleggia

[Business of Supply, March 21st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it is true that inflation poses a challenge to Canadians. Food inflation poses a challenge to Canadians. However, study after study, rigorous analysis after rigorous analysis, by competent economists has shown that the contribution of the price of carbon pollution to food inflation is negligible. One figure that I read was that it contributes 0.15% to food inflation; that is to the increase in the price of food.

In fact, an interesting point was brought up at the environment committee the other day by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment, the member for Milton. He said that many food bank operators were quite worried about what would happen if the price on carbon were repealed, because the impact would be such that those who would go to the food banks would lose the Canada carbon rebate. They are quite worried. I have not heard of any food bank operator, quite frankly, calling for the repeal of the price on carbon.

What is impacting food inflation? It is something called the war in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine caused the international energy crisis to spike. It caused grain prices to spike. What is Ukraine called? It is called the bread basket of Europe. The war has constrained its supply of grain, putting upward pressure on food prices.

Why do the Conservatives never talk about that? I will tell members why. They are very sheepish when it comes to Ukraine because they are ashamed. They are ashamed that they did not support the Canada-Ukraine free trade act, an act that would permit Ukraine to enter into the European Union, the economic union. What the Conservatives also—

[Business of Supply, March 21st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it is a fact that emissions are starting to decrease, but they would decrease faster if it were not for the oil and gas sector, the sector that is predominant in the member's province and the sector his party is tied to at the hip.

There is no carbon tax. It is a price on carbon. Who said that? The Supreme Court said that. In its ruling on the Greenhouse Gas Pricing Pollution Act, it said, “there is ample evidence that the fuel and excess emission charges imposed by Parts 1 and 2 of the GGPPA have a regulatory purpose.... [They] cannot be characterized as taxes; rather, they are regulatory charges whose purpose is to advance the GGPPA’s regulatory purpose by altering behaviour.”

Why is the member contradicting the Supreme Court of Canada?

[Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, March 19th, 2024]

Madam Chair, I had the occasion to meet Brian Mulroney only once in my life, and it was just a few short years ago. I was attending the annual lunch of the St. Patrick's Society in Montreal around this time of year. It coincided with Brian Mulroney's 80th birthday, and he was the guest speaker that day at the luncheon. He regaled us with wonderful stories at the start of his speech for what seemed like a good half hour.

At the end of those stories, many of which had us roaring with laughter, I would have thought it normal that he would have said that was it and sat down, but that was just the beginning. He launched into an analysis of the global situation. He talked about the values that must guide us forward in this world if we are to make it a better place for humanity and for Canada.

I told him that day, when I got a chance to speak to him very briefly at the little reception before the lunch, that my wife's great uncle was Davie Fulton. I knew that Davie Fulton was a mentor to Brian Mulroney. Davie Fulton had been the minister of justice and had watched Brian Mulroney as a young, budding political activist. He watched him go through St. Francis Xavier University where he first got involved in Conservative politics. Obviously, he had great pride and pleasure in knowing that this young man aspired to hold the highest office in the land.

I remember the arc of Mr. Mulroney's career. I remember those two leadership campaigns and how dramatic they were. One was in 1976, and one, I think, was around 1982. The force of his personality just radiated across the television screen.

Brian Mulroney is an inspiration to political leaders and to politicians. He inspired leaders and politicians to be bold and ambitious, and to build relationships based on goodwill, generosity and kindness. This is not just an inspiration for political people or business people, but also an inspiration for all Canadians and all people.

The idea that relationships are at the core of a meaningful life, and it is that kindness and generosity. It was mentioned by the member who spoke a couple of members before me, who talked about certain principles that guided his relationships, and the idea that we have to reach out to people who are suffering at a particular moment and give them support, and about the belief in loyalty and so on.

Mr. Mulroney was a proud Quebecker from the north shore. I think it is worth pointing out that while Mr. Mulroney was certainly both urban and cosmopolitan, he grew up in an industrial town in rural Quebec. That town was a driver of the Quebec economy, and I would imagine certain jobs there involved workplace health and safety risks.

That experience shaped him and made him into what I would call a noble populist. When I use the term populist, I am not talking about modern populism, which seemingly tries to cultivate negative emotions with the aim of seizing power. I am talking about Diefenbaker-style populism, if I can put it that way. It is a kind of populism that keeps the best interests of the community and the greatest number of people in mind. It is about the so-called “ordinary” people. We know what that means.

It means people like those of us who are not necessarily part of society's elite, who face certain challenges and who sometimes need a helping hand. That was the kind of populism he embraced throughout his career.

This communitarian spirit is really at the root of why he was so ahead of his time on an issue that was mentioned by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands yesterday, the environment. I do not think it was because he had done a market study and thought that this was a good political winner issue to advance his career or the fortunes of his government. I think he believed in the environment because he believed in community.

He knew that supporting the environment was a way of helping the world and helping the country. Those are values that guide and inspire us today.

[Business of Supply, February 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that unanimous consent was not given to table these very important documents, which are very revealing of how the previous government managed things. I am also shocked by the obvious cozy relationship that existed between the previous Conservative government and this firm, and the very lax contracting policies that left us documents with words such as “work unspecified”.

Does the member not feel that perhaps this cozy relationship and these lax practices might have emboldened GC Strategies going forward?

[Regional Economic Development, February 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, we are proud of our Quebec businesses, which create jobs and support economic growth.

The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord underscored the importance of funding Quebec businesses in parliamentary committee, and yet the Conservatives voted against our funding measures.

Can the minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec tell us how our government's programs are strengthening supply chain development and resilience?

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very difficult question.

We all believe in personal autonomy and choice. However, as I said in my speech two days ago, sometimes I think that is becoming a bit of an ideology, where we do not recognize that, yes, we are individuals with free will and free choice, but we are born into families and communities. We are influenced not only by the opportunities that families and communities afford us, but also by the constraints they impose upon us. In some cases, society imposes more hardship on some than others.

We do not seem to be able to separate out whether somebody is asking for medical assistance in dying because of the hardships that society has imposed on them, or whether it is really a clear-eyed decision. I am not a psychiatrist. I am not a doctor. I do not approach this with—

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about it. I do not know what it means and there is much disagreement as to what it means.

I would ask a question of the member, which I know he will not have to answer under the rules. Is he okay with track one MAID? A lot of the psychiatrists who went before the committee who were not in favour of MAID for mental disorders were in favour of track one and track two. I would like to know if the member accepts MAID under any circumstance or not at all.

It is an important ethical and moral decision, I agree, but no one in the House wants people to suffer needlessly, and I think we are all grappling with this on moral and technical grounds. It may not be possible, I cannot say, but we want to separate out suicidal ideation. We want to be able to separate out psychosocial factors as motivating factors for requesting MAID in cases of mental illness, and we are not there yet.

We want to study treatment fatigue to see, if somebody says they are done and cannot take it anymore, whether we can guide them to another treatment. We have looked at treatment fatigue when it comes to HIV and type 1 diabetes patients, but we have not looked at treatment fatigue when we talk about psychiatric illnesses.

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I should have used the correct term, “advance requests”, instead of “advance directives”.

It seems to me that, during question period, the leader of the Bloc Québécois was just asking for an amendment to allow advance requests all of a sudden. Regardless of the government's timeline, I do not think the House is really ready to vote on this. Some members of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying may be.

However, as I told him earlier, this is not something as straightforward as the Standing Committee on Finance studying a budget. In that case, the members of a given party recommend that all their fellow party members vote in favour of it because they have studied it and the party trusts them. Everyone wants to make the right decision, so this requires a much more thorough debate.

As the member himself said, Quebec did not put medical assistance in dying due to mental disorders in its legislation. The member said it was because Quebec had not studied it at the time. If Quebec is so sure, it can amend its legislation to include it.

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising for the second time this week to speak to this issue. As I said at the beginning of my speech at second reading, I was so interested in this issue that I offered to sit on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying when it dealt with the question of mental illness. I felt it was my duty to take part in a debate that is so important for our society. This is a crucial and extremely complex social debate. As a legislator, I wanted to learn more about this hot-button public policy issue that is so important to my constituents. Many of them have written to me about this.

I attended much of the debate on the issue this week, and I was very impressed by the tone. It is true that emotions can sometimes get the better of us, but that is to be expected when we are debating such a crucial matter, a matter of life and death. I must say that I was impressed that the debate was conducted in a respectful manner. That is impressive, and we should adopt that same tone when we discuss the many other issues addressed here in the House.

I heard arguments that I do not want to call fallacious, because that is a pejorative term and I do not want to criticize anyone, but let us just say that I heard a few contradictions during certain speeches.

First, someone claimed that we could have simply amended Bill C-62 to include advance requests. I do not think we are ready to make a hasty amendment to open the door to something as complex—if not more—as medical assistance in dying, namely, medical assistance in dying for persons with a mental illness. It took much effort, much debate, much discussion and several committee meetings for us to be able to talk about medical assistance in dying for patients with a mental illness.

Moreover, the idea that we can move an amendment in committee is wrong, because such an amendment would certainly be ruled out of order, since the scope of the bill is not that broad. The bill deals with a specific question, namely, medical assistance in dying for persons with a mental illness.

People claim we are taking too much time to debate this issue, that it has already been three years and that we should end the debate. We are not talking about policies like affordability or the need to build housing as quickly as possible. We are talking about something very serious. We really are going beyond the more practical issues, and I think it will take the time it takes because there is no consensus among the experts. If there is no consensus, we cannot force the issue, suddenly demand consensus and insist we move forward because time is running out. The issue of how long it will take to reach a good conclusion is unfortunately not a problem for me.

As I was saying, this is not simply a technical medical issue, it is a moral and ethical issue for society, certainly.

The matter of caution was also raised. Some claim that the government is too cautious, too timid, on this issue, that it is not acting as quickly as people would like, that it has not addressed the issue fast enough or lacks political will. It does in fact lack political will because there are too many uncertainties. In this case, it is not a bad thing to lack political will in order to forge ahead as soon as possible.

However, on this idea of being too cautious, I would say that this is true even for the Bloc Québécois, because it has accepted the framework we have established. For the moment, we are not implementing this framework. Nevertheless, under the framework, not everyone who requests medical assistance in dying on the grounds of a mental illness will receive it. We are talking about a mere 5% acceptance rate. Even if we went ahead, we would do so with a lot of caution, given the 95% of people who would request medical assistance in dying on those grounds.

We should then not talk as if caution were not an issue. Caution is an issue, even if we agree to move forward. I would like to ask my colleagues who keep disparaging the government for its caution whether it would be too cautious to require that, in these cases, a psychiatrist be involved in assessing the person's request. Right now, it is not necessary for a psychiatrist to be involved in the assessment. In the Netherlands, where medical assistance in dying is legal, a psychiatrist must give an opinion on the request. There is caution built into the process, but it is not unreasonable. I would say that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois agree that some caution is required.

There is also talk about freedom. Some say that this is a matter of freedom, as if they were talking about absolute freedom. It is not a matter of absolute freedom, because 95% of those requesting medical assistance in dying would not have access to it on the grounds of a mental illness. We need to make things clear and add nuance to this debate to avoid giving the impression we are talking about absolute concepts.

Then they bring up the issue of the Quebec nation. I listened carefully to my friend, the hon. member from Joliette, with whom I enjoyed working on election reform. He is a seasoned parliamentarian who makes excellent speeches in the House. He said that there were many nations in Canada. Indeed, there is the Quebec nation, but there are also indigenous nations. There are indigenous nations within the Quebec nation as well. What I understand is that indigenous nations are not too keen to move this issue forward at this time. They say that they have not been consulted enough. They have concerns about the systemic racism that exists in health care systems across the country. Among other things, they are afraid that not enough thought will be put into processing the requests.

We should not focus too much on the idea of community when it comes to medical assistance in dying. When people get to that point, when they are on their death bed, I do not think they dwell too much on the community. Each person is a soul facing infinity alone. That is why we should not talk too much about nations when we are discussing medical assistance in dying. It is not a matter of being part of a community. I agree that it is a matter of individual rights. That is where it gets complicated, because we do not want people to suffer.

However, we do not want people to do things that have not been assessed with the utmost caution, because it is a matter of life and death.

I will stop here and await my colleagues' questions.

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, in issues like this, there is always this tension between the right of the individual and the impacts that individual has on the “culture”, for lack of a better word, and on others in the society when exercising that right. This was brought up by one of the psychiatrists who appeared before the committee when he said that one of the concerns he has with MDSUMC is a possible contagion effect. I do not know if courts would actually consider this because it is so difficult to prove. Anyway, it is just something I think about a lot, and I wonder whether the member has any thoughts on that.