Alexandre Boulerice

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

We agree on the fact that people must be given the choice. They must be able to leave this life with dignity and avoid useless suffering. However, there is a provision in the bill that concerns us a little, and that is the fact that the physician must have expertise or specific knowledge of the person's illness.

In the case of people living in rural or remote areas, there may not be a physician with knowledge of a rare illness. Would that not be an obstacle to accessing this right?

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very compassionate and heartfelt speech. It was very moving.

I have a question about requiring a person with an incurable disease to obtain permission from a medical practitioner specializing in the disease in order to get access to medical assistance in dying. In the case of people living in rural or remote regions that do not always have the appropriate medical specialists, does this requirement not constitute an impediment?

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, as citizens, we should all agree that it is important to prevent needless suffering at end of life and that it should be up to individuals to decide how they want to end their lives with dignity. However, we also need a legal framework to ensure that doctors can act within the law without being faulted after the fact for having helped someone end their life.

Would my colleague not agree that doctors need a legal framework to be able to do this work?

[Taxation, October 9th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals clearly lack the guts to go after the uber-rich who are profiting from the current situation.

Many small businesses have been suffering since the beginning of the pandemic, but some businesses are raking in huge profits. Companies like Netflix and Amazon have seen their profits soar, or even double. What do these big companies have in common? They do not pay taxes here.

These capitalist behemoths do not contribute to our collective efforts to pay for health care and schools. The NDP has a very simple question. When will the Liberals have the guts to—

[Judges Act, October 8th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I believe that everyone agrees that this is an important bill, a step in the right direction, and that it addresses a crucial issue, but I am frustrated by the Conservatives' inconsistency. I would like to understand one thing.

This week, why did the Conservative Party reject the proposal made by one of my colleagues to immediately send this bill to the Senate? Why are we spending the day still talking about this when we could have sent it to the Senate, had the Conservatives agreed?

[Judges Act, October 8th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He raised a number of very important points, such as the need to move forward and do more, changing attitudes, cultural shifts, and social change. I completely agree with him.

Now here we are with a bill that has unanimous support, but the Conservative Party rejected a motion to fast-track its passage and send it to the Senate right away. I do not know why things are being delayed like this. Maybe the Conservative Party does not want to discuss certain bills, like the one banning conversion therapy, which is insulting and degrading to the entire LGBTQ+ community.

[Judges Act, October 8th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his heartfelt and impassioned speech. The points he raised are quite valid.

We debated the bill and it was passed by the House of Commons in the previous Parliament. It even made it to the Senate. At this point, the five parties in the House unanimously agree that it should pass. Everyone agrees that it is very important and is a step in the right direction.

This week, one of our colleagues proposed that we fast-track the bill, which was introduced by the Conservative Party. However, the Conservatives refused to expedite the process.

Why do the Conservatives not want to expedite the process to pass a Conservative bill?

[Judges Act, October 8th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I think it is good for judges to be trained in avoiding bias and stereotypes, but women have to be able to get to that point in the first place. There is a glaring lack of funding for shelters for women who are victims of violence, including spousal violence.

How does the member intend to increase funding so that women have a place to stay when they are in distress?

[Judges Act, October 8th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed with my colleague's speech. We have come to expect more content in his remarks, in general. I am really trying to understand what the Conservative Party is doing here today. I think its position is remarkably hypocritical. The Conservatives are claiming that they want to pass this bill as quickly as possible, but this week, when a member of Parliament moved a motion to expedite the passage of the bill, the Conservative Party voted against it.

What is going on here today?

[Foreign Affairs, October 7th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, after another night of intensive bombing of Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, we are wondering how the federal government could have sold military technology to Turkey. Today, those technologies are being used against Armenian civilians. That goes against our obligations under the UN Arms Trade Treaty, as does the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Now, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is off to Europe. We need more than photo ops. People are dying.

What pressure tactics will be used to restore peace in Nagorno-Karabakh?