Charlie Angus

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear. I did not say that because he does not remember what happened 30 years ago, it is not on the record. Maybe he did not remember it, but Liberals made the promise. I am asking him to remember what happened now.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I feel it is really important to reassure the Canadian people, who have just been subjected to another daily word salad from the member for Winnipeg North, that mindless verbiage is not what normally happens. One has to listen to him very carefully to understand how the minister of obfuscation is doing the job of the Prime Minister.

Do we remember the part in his very long speech when he talked about how much Liberals cared about seniors who could not pay for their medicine? Liberals used that line in 1993 under Jean Chrétien. They used it in 1997, in 2000, in 2004 and in 2008. In 2015, when the Prime Minister was elected and there were Liberal majorities across the country, they were going to establish national pharmacare. Last night, they stood up and shut it down. That is why they sent in the member for Winnipeg North today: to try to obfuscate the fact that year in, year out they make promises and then deny what they promised they would move forward on.

For folks back home, this is just another day in the Liberal tool box of misinformation.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, one of the most difficult things I have had to experience is being at a door with a senior citizen who could not go out because she had no teeth. I cannot call the Liberal government and ask it to help a senior citizen who has given her best to this country her whole life. I have to call charities, asking for support. Is there a dental care plan from the government? No. Pharmacare is another broken promise.

The Conservatives tried to raise the age for old age pension to 67, and the Liberals did them one better and said that even though they love all seniors, they have to be over 75 to get an increase. We have seniors who continue to live in poverty, and the member voted against the national pharmacare plan, which has been on the books for the Liberals since 1993, when seniors in my riding were in their early thirties. I know seniors who have to break their pills in half or go without them because of the Liberals' indifference.

[Points of Order, February 25th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, this is really important. I rarely agree with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, but I would agree that similar rules are not being applied to those online and those in the House.

When I rise on a point of order in the House when someone else is speaking, my microphone does not turn on until you recognize me. I could shout or do anything to get your attention, but the person with the microphone who has the floor gets heard. What we see online is that certain members, including particularly the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, use technology to obstruct and to interfere, and then attack the House technical staff, which I find very concerning, because they are trying to do their job for you.

Mr. Speaker, if you did not hear the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan after his first, second or third attempt to intervene, it would be hard to believe. You would have allowed the member speaking to finish and then recognized him. We have to have a rule about people like the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan who use the online power to attempt to obstruct and shut down the right of other members to be heard. You are the Speaker and you can put that person on mute and hear him afterward, but members have to be able to finish their statements without interruption.

[Points of Order, February 25th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, it concerns me when we see members, like the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, use technology to interrupt people speaking in the House and continually interfere. We have a right, as members, to hear a motion before we decide whether we are going to support it or not, but we cannot have someone use technology to continually obstruct an effort to put a motion on the floor. The member has been obstructing this. He uses this tactic all the time and I think we should mute his microphone.

[Points of Order, February 24th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. One of the really impressive feats that you have done in the House, with this virtual hybrid Parliament, is try to ensure we are all working as collegially as possible. There is not a single member in the House who has not had a technical issue. It would have been very inappropriate during question period for the member for Vancouver Kingsway to have interrupted the House.

I want to put on the record, and I respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that it was the member for Ottawa West—Nepean who seemed very adamant that our member was not going to be allowed to speak. It has to be understood that what goes around comes around. The member for Ottawa West—Nepean has decided to deny a member of the House the right to speak because of technical issues—

[Indigenous Affairs, February 23rd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to denying rights to first nation children, the Prime Minister is clear that money is no object. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on his obstruction of the Human Rights Tribunal is shocking. Ten noncompliance orders later, as a result of the Human Rights Tribunal's being forced to issue maximum penalties to try to bring the Prime Minister to the table, the bill is now $15 billion and has been paid in the lives of far too many first nation children. Those children deserve better. I am asking the Prime Minister, will he end his obstruction to the Human Rights Tribunal and pay the money that is owing to these most vulnerable children in Canada?

[Criminal Code, February 23rd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, in 2019 I brought forward a motion on a national suicide action plan. As an elected member, I went across the country, engaged with people and spoke to people. That is the democratic process. The Liberals voted for it and then did nothing.

I ask members to imagine a member of Parliament bringing forward a motion that if someone is depressed they can die immediately, that they can have the right to die. There would be debate and a national outcry. Instead, we have the Senate, the unelected and unaccountable Senate, put this motion in. With any dramatic change to any kind of law, the Liberals say that it is their friends in the Senate and that we should talk about this in two years.

This is not how these kinds of decisions are to be made. The fact that the unelected and unaccountable Senate could dramatically change legislation and cut a deal with the Liberals that it would be brought forward at a certain period of time, to me, is an insult to the democratic process. It is a greater insult when I hear the Liberals say that we should just get this bill passed, that we can worry about it down the road and that they trust what the committee will do.

To allow people who are feeling depressed to die is a major change to MAID. Liberals need to admit that and say it is well beyond the scope of this legislation.

[Criminal Code, February 23rd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for recognizing me, but he may want to retract the comments about how impressed he is by me, because I know he is going to be impressed by many other things I say as well.

[Criminal Code, February 23rd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I said goodbye to a dear friend. The pain was becoming too much and the cancer was unbeatable, and she passed through medical assistance in dying. However, we are not talking about those cases anymore. We are talking about a dramatic rewriting of the law.

I hear my Liberal colleagues saying we should just get this bill through and that we have talked about it a lot—this when there are serious concerns from the disability community about making them second-class citizens in this country on this issue, when the unelected and unaccountable Senate has now said we should add people who are depressed and have mental illness.

We have fought so hard to make the government stand up on issues. On the national suicide action plan, it has done nothing. We have talked about mental health supports; it has done nothing. We have talked to the government time and time again about disabled people living in poverty; it put it off for another day. Now the government is telling us it is time to rush legislation. It is creating a second track of humanhood in this country for disabled people who do not have the support or ability to live the lives they fully deserve, and now the Senate is willing to say we should include people who are depressed.

Does my hon. colleague think that maybe we need to draw a line here and say we actually have to discuss these issues because they are fundamental to who we are as a nation, rather than go along with the Liberals and the Senate, who say we should just pass this bill and not talk about it?