David Graham

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 9th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know whether the member for Trois-Rivières, who spoke about the importance of keeping promises, which I am proud to tell him is what we are doing, still agrees with his party's position that governments should not run deficits and that austerity is the solution to our economic problems.

NDP members talk about their ideal and about their idealistic promises, which are not right, left, or forward. Their promises are nothing but dreams and symbolic gestures, but at the end of the day, they promised austerity, which does not work. It involves telling the most vulnerable that they must do more with less and that they must not invest. They are talking about what they will do in five or ten years and hope that their policies will have perhaps helped us.

Does the member still stand by his promise of austerity, or is that a broken NDP promise?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 9th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I will try to lead her back to the matter we are discussing today.

She seems to be ignoring the fact that it was her government that sold Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at a loss. I really do not know what she is talking about. It really makes no sense whatsoever. At least the other Conservatives stay on topic when falsely criticizing us and ignoring the Conservative deficit that we inherited and that we have still not eliminated, as we have all the other times that the Conservatives left us a deficit.

Despite all these debts, they did not make the investments needed to improve our regions. I would like to know whether my colleague is aware of the fact that the Conservatives have not managed to eliminate a deficit since the 19th century, and that they have never left a surplus even once upon ceding power, whereas all Liberal prime ministers who tabled a budget have managed to balance at least one.

Therefore, historically, which party has been able to manage national budgets, stimulate economic growth, help the middle class, and address the infrastructure deficit?

The only real wealth the Conservatives left us is the rather rich description of their legacy.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about deficits with the authority of someone who is intimately acquainted with them.

In fact, it has been almost 150 years since the Conservatives posted a surplus. The Conservatives left us poorer and more in debt than when they came to power. Furthermore, they attacked supply management, which we are defending. They did not invest in most of the programs that my colleague mentioned today.

My colleague said that we must make more budget cuts, spend less and invest only if it does not create debt.

If he could go back to the Conservative Party's term in 2006, what would he do differently?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member is actually serious when she says that the Conservatives left us with less debt than when they arrived. That is one of the more entertaining comments I have heard so far today.

The Conservatives have not managed to balance a budget in over 130 or 140 years, after having entered office with a deficit. They have never taken us from deficit to surplus, not once since the 1900s. Last year, the government left us with a significant deficit, and it is getting worse. I would like to hear the opposition's explanation.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North made a strong case yesterday for the fact that the Liberal budget would benefit all Canadians. That is who Liberals are; that is what Liberals do.

The New Democrats want us not to post a deficit. They promised austerity. The Conservatives, of course, want us to do as they say, not as they do. Indeed, the Conservatives sank us over $1 billion per month into the hole during a decade in office. If we had something to show for it, I would not object so strenuously.

Borrowing money to invest helps Canadians. Building infrastructure at short-term cost brings us long-term gain. Being an active member of society, as a government, is to the benefit of all and is a key part of our role. However, the Conservatives did not do any of that. The last time they took us from deficit to surplus was in the 19th century, back before they could say that money could be flushed down the toilet because flushing toilets had not been invented, so there was no such analogy.

Indeed, the great majority of Canada's debt is Conservative-incurred debt, but the great majority of Canadian infrastructure is Liberal-built infrastructure. The Conservatives were so bad at managing the country that they left us penniless.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1., May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, when faced with social inequality, a cause to which we are just as committed as my colleague, we must help everyone, help the entire economy, and invest in our infrastructure, our communities, and our future. If that means that we have to borrow to make investments, then that is part of our role as the government.

Can my colleague explain how the NPD could have helped anyone by promising to never run a deficit, even though there was already a deficit under the Conservatives? Where would the NDP's austerity have led us?

[Canada Post, May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post provides important services for my constituents in Laurentides—Labelle and for all Canadians.

All across the country, people are dismayed at the lack of respect and service cuts that the previous Conservative government imposed on Canada Post. In rural ridings like mine, these impacts are even more noticeable.

During the last election, the Liberal Party committed to a comprehensive review of the crown corporation. Would the minister responsible for Canada Post please update this House on the status of that review?

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member is concerned about access to death versus access to life. On the timeline we are working with, imposed by the Carter ruling, is precisely access to death that we are addressing here. I do not believe there is anyone here who is opposed to looking at palliative care.

For me, freedom to life is very much like, and as important as, freedom of religion. Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be religious in any manner we choose, just as it includes the freedom from religion. Freedom of life includes the freedom to live, but it includes the fundamental right not to live. The latter is not a right that should be exercised lightly, and it is extremely important to have processes in place, as this bill proposes to do in line with the Carter decision.

I believe we should make every effort as a society and as a Parliament to make every person's life as good as possible. Indeed, that is a principal obligation of government. I believe that the decision of when to end one's life is a decision that belongs to the person whose life is ending, and only that person.

Does my colleague agree that the best defence of life we can provide is by getting this law through on deadline, avoiding a legal vacuum, even if it means revisiting the issue later?

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Hébert for his very clear speech on an issue that is so personal for many of us.

Almost everyone here in the House who is participating in this debate has similar stories from their own lives.

In my case, my grandmother was no longer able to teach downhill skiing at the end of her life. After teaching it for nearly 70 years, she started falling, until her injuries were too serious for her to survive them.

I do not think this came under the canopy of medical assistance in dying or assisted suicide. I find that circumstance unacceptable. We need to fix this lack of dignity.

Is my colleague worried about the legal vacuum that would exist if this bill is not passed within the prescribed time frame?

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the personal story and the comments by my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. This is a very personal, emotional and important debate. Like me, he is a new MP, and he was not here when the Carter decision was handed down.

However, I am somewhat frustrated by the fact that nothing was done in the four months that passed between the time that the Supreme Court ruling was handed down and the end of the 41st parliament.

Since we were given such a short deadline, does my colleague believe that passing the bill at second reading would improve the situation, even if he is not satisfied with the conditions, or would he be happy with the void created by the failure to pass the bill at third reading, in the event that the changes he wants were not accepted?