Colin Carrie

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 10th, 2016]

With regard to the sale of marijuana products, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many licensed dealers have been approved by Health Canada to sell marijuana for medical purposes; (b) how many inspections of licensed dealers have been completed; (c) have there been any changes to the number of inspectors available for this work; (d) have there been any changes to the amount of funding available for this work; (e) how much marijuana has been reported lost, stolen, or wasted from all licensed dealers; (f) how many licensed dealers have been authorized to sell products other than dried marijuana; (g) how many inspections have taken place for the dealers identified in (f); (h) have any reviews taken place to ensure that edible products have not increased risks to children, and, if so, were any recommendations made; (i) how many reports of adverse drug reactions have been received by Health Canada or licensed dealers, and what were the health impacts; (j) what measures have been taken to address illegal advertising by marijuana compassion clubs and other unauthorized dealers; and (k) has Health Canada initiated or asked for a legal opinion for whether or not the government restricts the sale of various forms of marijuana and, if so, which forms of marijuana are available for sale and which are not?

[Criminal Code, May 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, my NDP colleague who is from Quebec rightfully said that this issue was thought out through different governments, and all members in the House had time to listen to their constituents. I believe that they had six years of debate in Quebec.

This truly is a matter of life and death. It would change the social structure of our country.

The member is correct. The Supreme Court gave an artificial deadline. It came up with a date. However, the date can change.

We are doing our work in the House. Why does the government insist on rushing forward so that the voices of my constituents, my colleagues' constituents, and those of the backbench Liberal MPs, cannot be heard? Canadians deserve that their members of Parliament be heard in this House.

[Criminal Code, May 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question because it shows that there is actually a lot of agreement between many people across the way and on different sides of the debate.

As he is a new member, I would like to point this out. He said that the Liberal health minister is mandated to work with the provinces and territories. Working with them is not the same as delivering an immediate $3 billion into palliative care.

As the bill sits today, it is extremely flawed. As was brought up by my NDP colleague, why are the Liberals taking this approach? During my speech today, I asked whether the Liberals had asked for an extension from the Supreme Court. I have heard about many decisions coming from the Supreme Court, and I believe that we can ask for that. It realizes the work that we are doing.

This is not something that needs to be rushed. I think we have to do the best we can to get things right.

[Criminal Code, May 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say how happy I am to finally be able to exercise my rights as a member of Parliament to speak to Bill C-14. Over the last few weeks, I have been in line to speak, but have not been able to do so because of the shutting down of debate and the antics put forth by the Liberals. I am really pleased to be able to talk today for my constituents.

I think it is important, when Canadians watch the debate, that they remember the debacle this week and that this was all about a vote on Wednesday to shut down debate on Bill C-14.

As my NDP colleague just said, we only have one more day, just a little over two hours, to debate 16 amendments. I think what is really important is for Canadians listening to this debate to get in touch with their MPs. They only have one week. I want them to look at the amendments and get in touch with their MPs, especially their Liberal MPs. As members sadly know, many of the backbench Liberal MPs will not be able to speak to the bill. The reason is that their front bench does not want them to speak on it. For me, for every member in the House, and for all Canadians, this is a very personal and very important bill, and has strong views on many sides of the debate. It will change the social structure of our country .

If we look at the foundation and the founding principles of our country and the great democracies around the world, they are based upon rights for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today, we are actually debating some of the opposites of that: the opposite of life being death, the opposite of liberty being enclosure, and the opposite of pursuit of happiness basically being sadness.

I have been able to speak with, but also to listen to many of my constituents who have very diversified opinions. I think it is essential for all of us here in the House to respect these many points of view. At the extreme of one end, some were very much against the bill. Others were very much in favour of it. However, for most of the people I was able to listen to, they are somewhere in the middle.

The one thing that most of the people in Oshawa I have talked with agree on is that the act of assisted suicide should be an exception and not the rule. In other words, assisted suicide should only be made available on the rarest of occasions, and, of course, have the greatest of safeguards.

My concern, as we heard from my colleague here in the House, is that this is a flawed bill. In the rush to pass the assisted suicide bill before the deadline of June 6, the Liberal government has created confusion and despair. What have the Liberals chosen to do? They have chosen to break their promise to Canadians. I want to bring up and emphasize my question to my colleague across the way. When the Liberals were campaigning, they promised Canadians that they would put $3 billion into a palliative care system. I do not know where my colleague was reading it, but when I read the budget, there is absolutely no new money for health in the budget. In the first year, when the government is rushing to hit this date, there is no new money to support the other side of the equation. There is nothing. There is zero.

As far as health is concerned, this is a horrible message. It means that health care is not a priority for the Prime Minister. Canadians expect a choice between quality palliative care and this legislation. Instead, the Liberal government has chosen to support just one-half of that choice. It has put all its time and resources into assisted suicide and has not provided the promised $3 billion to palliative care, supportive care, for Canada's most vulnerable.

That is why I called on my colleague across the way to call on the Liberal government to immediately keep its promise. It is not too late to invest in palliative care. According to the Supreme Court, and from what we have heard, Canadians have the right to choose, to choose between assisted death, or hopefully the government can give them a choice to live comfortably near the end of their lives.

That is where this is really important and why I am glad I am able to speak today. The constituents I have talked to feel that the Liberal government needs to be held to account. Making the choice between assisted death and good palliative care has to be made available by June 6.

This is the first time in Canadian history that our government in Canada is drafting a law that would make it legal for one person to take the life of another. The Supreme Court has said that it is not just a required service, but has determined that it is a matter of individual rights. What precedent does that set? What do the experts in palliative care say?

Madam Speaker, I would like to share with you, but also with Canadians watching this debate and with my colleagues in the House, some of the thoughts of a very special constituent of mine in Oshawa. Her name is Dr. Gillian Gilchrist.

Dr. Gilchrist is a leading expert in the field of palliative care and she has practised medicine for over 50 years. She started the palliative care system in Oshawa in 1981, which was 35 years ago. I do not know anyone in the country with more experience, more respect, and more knowledge. Recently, through an initiative with Lakeridge Health in Oshawa, and Queen's University, a research chair has been named in her honour, dedicated to palliative care. It is the first fully funded academic research chair in palliative care at a community hospital in Canada. Dr. Gilchrist said that proper palliative care cannot be done without a team, and there is a lot that palliative care can do. There needs to be more volunteers and training. Patients deserve support, and the families need support as well.

One of the things Dr. Gilchrist said to me very strongly is that euthanasia is wrong, that doctors should not do it, and that it is not what they were trained to do. Dr. Gilchrist has treated more than 5,000 patients, and not one of those patients asked for euthanasia. She went on to say that palliative care cannot stretch across every corner in Canada, but with the assistance of the Internet, patients can obtain assistance to treatment as well as the support they need. Those individuals, at the end of their lives, can actually have a true choice. We know that experts have said that given the choice of good palliative care, 95% of patients will choose life over assisted suicide.

This affirms one of the most obvious weaknesses in the Liberal approach to this most personal and sensitive subject. How can the government rush forward so blindly toward an artificial deadline of June 6 without even providing the funds to improve palliative care options for Canadians? Have the Liberals even asked the Supreme Court for an extension?

Choice also belongs to doctors, whom the Supreme Court has said will have to perform this final irreversible act of assisted suicide. Doctors and institutions deserve the right of protection of conscience. We know that doctors have taken a Hippocratic oath that calls for them to first do no harm. The question is, why has the current Liberal government failed to adapt the legislation to provide positive protection for those doctors and institutions who cannot participate in suicide due to conscientious objections?

The legislation being presented today simply references conscience, but there is no guarantee of protection. There is a mishmash across the country. Conservatives have proposed explicit provisions for conscience protection. However, the Liberal government chose watered-down protection.

For me, it is beyond understanding how a group of nine unelected lawyers from the Supreme Court can tell physicians how they must practise medicine. We do not see medical doctors telling lawyers how to practise law, especially without guaranteeing their rights to abstain from a practice that all of them swore to reject. As Dr. Gilchrist told me, this is not why they became doctors.

I want to repeat that I have been prepared multiple times to speak to Bill C-14, and I have been able to listen to my constituents. What I think is really important for Canadians to understand is that this is not a debate about money, about technicalities, and this is not a debate about regulations. This is an unprecedented debate about the subject of one individual taking the life of another. It is a national debate. All Canadians deserve to have their voices heard.

I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, and I want to thank the House leaders for all they have done. This is probably one of the most important issues that I have faced as a parliamentarian in the 12 years that I have been here.

[Criminal Code, May 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, one of the things the member mentioned was choice in end-of-life care.

My concern is that, when Canadians were voting last fall, they knew this bill was in the pipe. Members are aware that the Liberals, when they campaigned, promised they would put $3 billion towards palliative care and home care. Sadly, in this past budget, as members are aware, there are absolutely zero new dollars for palliative care.

We know that the Liberals are rushing this bill forward. We have seen the antics this week. People watching today should probably know that the antics this week were about shutting down debate on this very issue.

If the Liberals are truly offering a choice to Canadians, there is still enough time. Could the member talk to the health minister and the finance minister, and please have that $3 billion put into palliative care, as the Liberals promised in their election campaign?

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, all those things are true, but I would like to point out that Motion No. 6 is actually removing from Canadians the right to hear their members of Parliament debate the important issues before the House. I have been here long enough and I can count. The reality is that the Liberals have the numbers and they will get anything they want through the House. All we are asking on this side is to allow us to have the tools that have evolved. As I said, we belong to an institution that is hundreds of years old and it has worked. It is one of the best systems in the world and its longevity proves that.

I wholly respect my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot who is one of the longest sitting MPs. Motion No. 6 is about taking away, as my colleague said, Canadians' rights to hear from their members of Parliament and those of us who love this institution. I am asking my colleagues on the other side to please talk to their leader and ask him for a change of heart because Canadians deserve to be heard in the House. They deserve their opinions to be heard and they deserve to hear from their members of Parliament.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Portage—Lisgar.

This is not one of the times that I really would love to get up and debate in the House. After last night, I think all Canadians, when they watch the behaviour that was witnessed last night, realize that this is about our institution. This is about our highest level of government. We heard words like “shocked”, “unacceptable”, “traumatic”, “overwhelmingly violated”. These are some of the words that my hon. colleagues here in the House have used to describe the physical event that took place yesterday in the chamber. I am joining all members in the House in the shock and indignation over the actions of the Prime Minister.

I think all of us would prefer to get on to debating other things, but how does the Prime Minister fix this?

As my colleagues have said in the House, this did not just happen. If we look at this week, it started out as a normal week. I know for those of us in the opposition, what we did is something that all Canadians do. We showed up for work on Monday morning, and unfortunately, not enough Liberal members showed up for work, and they almost lost a vote. It is the first time in Canadian history that the Speaker had to break a tie in a situation like this, and they got mad at us for that.

This is something that all Canadians do. They wake up in the morning and they show up for work. That is what Canadians expect us to do. The fact that the Prime Minister was not able to manage a vote through the House, that his House leader was unable to get the votes here required to pass a bill, is not something that is our fault.

What else did we see this week?

There was Motion No. 6, and I think all of us, after that vote, realized that there is a new team in town governing things, but we never thought that it would go as far as Motion No. 6, taking away all the tools that we in the opposition have to effectively oppose.

I have to say to those members on the other side that I have been in opposition and I have been on the government side, and it is our job to oppose. It gives good government. We are opponents; we are not enemies.

The actions of the Prime Minister and his House leader this week kind of set the stage. I think all members of the House would agree. I have been here for 12 years and I have never seen behaviour like this. The behaviour we have seen is totally unacceptable.

The Prime Minister has admitted to coming into physical contact with a number of members. What are the consequences?

We heard today that the Prime Minister is okay that it is being sent to committee, but we all know who has the majority of that committee. I was hoping to hear from the members across the way that, perhaps for this committee, we could agree that maybe the opposition would even have the majority, or at least have some equality there so that we can look at this issue in a reasonable way. However, the government has proven from its actions this week that those members are willing to do anything to drive their agenda forward.

As I said, why I am so disturbed is that I have been here 12 years and I have never seen anything like that before. For me, it is about the love for this institution.

I think everybody would agree that it is completely unacceptable for the Prime Minister to be coming into physical contact with any member of the House without their consent. If the Prime Minister cannot really see that, he clearly does not understand his role in Parliament and how his actions are affecting the functioning of the House.

As I said, I have grown to love this institution. My constituents ask me what it is like being a member of Parliament. I wake up and I sometimes have to pinch myself, because this is a privilege.

I am sorry if I am getting emotional, but this is. I pinch myself. I look around at the beautiful works of art we have here. We have the ability to debate with colleagues who are such outstanding individuals here in the House. Some of the best people I have ever met I have met here in the House, not only from our side but on the opposition side as well.

How have last night's actions affected this institution that all of us love? I am talking about you, Mr. Speaker. What is the role of the Speaker in the House when you come across behaviour like this? What is the Speaker supposed to do? We trust in the Speaker's judgment, and it is a difficult position that the Prime Minister has now put the Speaker of the House in, this House that we feel so wonderful about and respect. What position is the Prime Minister putting the Speaker in? What position is he putting our Sergeant-at-Arms in?

We have this institution that has evolved over centuries, this institution that we have all become part of, like a family. Our role here is to work together to get things done. Part of that is allowing the opposition to do its job, to oppose. This week, sadly, we have seen the government do everything possible, unprecedented, so that, as my colleague said earlier, it does not have an opposition, it has an audience. That is truly sad. We are not enemies; we are opponents.

How does the Prime Minister fix this?

On the other side, we have seen, as my colleague said earlier, the rationalization of the behaviour. It is about taking responsibility for that behaviour and moving along. Yes, the Prime Minister did apologize, and I want the Speaker and all colleagues to know that I do accept that apology, but I want to say past actions are the best predictor of future actions.

I remember in the House, I was sitting right over here and the Prime Minister, at the time, was sitting right back there. My colleague from Thornhill, the Minister of the Environment at that time, one of the most regarded journalists we have ever had in Canada, one of the most respectful speakers here, one of the best speakers I have ever heard, was called something by the Prime Minister, something I cannot repeat here in the House. The Prime Minister did apologize for that. It was a heartfelt apology.

However, I have an article from the Toronto Star, from a couple days later, by Susan Delacourt. When the Prime Minister was asked about that apology, he said:

I called him something that was fundamentally biodegradable, compostable and good for the environment.

Is that a heartfelt apology?

For me, as I said, past actions are some of the best predictors of future behaviour. It is incumbent upon all of us, with our love for this institution and showing an example to future generations, to make sure that this institution is not damaged by the actions of the Prime Minister.

How does he do that? I again say, what does the Prime Minister do to fix this? It is about consequences. I have not really seen what is going to happen. I have not seen, from my colleagues across the way, how they would hold their leader, in the highest office in this country, to account for his actions.

We hear that he is okay with this being sent to committee, but we all know the Liberals have the majority on the committee. I do not know. I do not have a crystal ball. Maybe we can figure it out. If the Liberals' actions this week in the House, such as Motion No. 6, are any indication of future action, I think we can probably use that crystal ball and figure out how this is going to affect us and this institution.

I would love to talk a little more on this, because I want my colleagues to know that I am one of those guys who have been up to speak in the House on the assisted suicide bill, twice. My constituents really want their voices to be heard. I have a doctor in my community, Dr. Gillian Gilchrist, who has had years in the palliative care field. I want to bring her comments to the House.

However, I have been denied that right. It has been changed twice. I am hopeful that when the Prime Minister said he was willing to change that he truly is willing to change, and that the actions moving forward will be different. I welcome his apology and I hope that bodes well for his future behaviour.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Health for her speech, and I respect a lot of the things she does here in the House. She has some very difficult files to work with.

I think we have to keep perspective in the House. We are opponents, not enemies, and last night, that aggression we saw was totally unacceptable.

I recall the critic for the NDP asking what are appropriate consequences for actions. The topic we are debating today is a question of privilege. It is the physical molestation of a fellow member.

The Minister of Health talks about being a physician, and I would like her opinion as a physician. If she had a patient come into her home town of Markham—Stouffville and present her with a challenge that she faced with molestation in the workplace, what is her duty as a physician confronted with this? What is her duty to report, and should her leader be any different? What are appropriate consequences?

[Health, May 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, that is not exactly what Health Canada is saying, and it is not unlike the Liberals to send mixed messages to Canadians. They are making dangerous drugs easily accessible by promoting the use of prescription heroine, legalizing marijuana, and opening more supervised injection sites in our neighbourhoods. At the same time, the Liberal government is creating barriers for people treating their chronic pain with Tylenol.

Will the Liberals do the right thing and fight drug abuse and dependency instead of enabling it?

[Health, May 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, under a new proposal from the Liberals, pain relievers like Tylenol would no longer be readily available to Canadians on store shelves.

Under another initiative, Liberals are proposing that we make it legal for drug addicts to receive heroin. We cannot make this stuff up. The Liberals would actually ban Tylenol from pharmacy shelves, while making it legal for addicts to access heroin.

Could the Minister of Health explain why they are enabling hard drug use but creating barriers for Tylenol users?