David Sweet

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I read section 265(1). Clearly, if someone outside of these doors grabs somebody by the arm and drag the person down the hall unwillingly, it would be committing an offence. That is the average person, let alone someone who is entrusted with the highest elected office in the federal government. Not only is it the responsibility of the Prime Minister to act in accordance with the laws of Canada, but to set an example, a much higher example, based on the office and responsibility he holds.

If behaviour like that occurred outside of the doors in front of a law enforcement officer, there would be consequences and they would have to be dealt with.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I usually stand up and say that I am honoured to speak to the issue. I cannot say that today.

I want to make my comments in light of the fact that the 338 seats here in the House, no matter where they are, represent individuals who have the extraordinary opportunity, the great blessing, of having the trust of enough people in the ridings they represent to send them here to represent them in the greatest democracy in the world. We come here humbled by that—or we should be humbled by that—knowing that we serve at their behest and we serve because they trust us to come here and not only represent them legislatively and regulatorily, but also to represent them in a fashion that would be becoming of those who would be the leaders of this great federation.

I want to make my comments in light of that reality that we live every day here in the House, being people who have a great honour and blessing to represent their constituents, in my case the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook.

I just have five points that I will get through in the brief time that I have, which I think the Prime Minister should consider.

The first point is that the Prime Minister's actions reflect on this entire chamber. In fact, the Prime Minister's actions reflect on every member here and on every Canadian citizen. I know that Her Majesty is the head of the state in our Westminster tradition, but the Prime Minister's position publicly is often indistinguishable from that of Her Majesty in regard to who is seen as the leader of this country. When the Prime Minister behaves in the fashion he did yesterday, it stains the institution, it stains us, and it stains every Canadian.

The second consideration I would like to pose to the Prime Minister would be the rationalization by some of his members of what happened yesterday. One of the grave concerns that I have is that a number of members from the Liberal bench stood up almost immediately and tried to rationalize the behaviour. They phrased the reaction of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé as a dive in sports. That took us to a new level of degradation after the very inappropriate actions of the Prime Minister happened. One rationalization was that somehow the delay by the opposition whip was justification for the behaviour. There should be lots of thought and consideration on the other bench and by the Prime Minister in that regard.

Another thing I would like to say is that I have never been involved in martial arts, but I had a lot of friends who were active in martial arts. The Prime Minister is active in martial arts. He is a proven boxer, and that fact he does not hide. In fact, he pretty well promotes his prowess in the martial sport quite actively publicly. All those people whom I have known who have been trained in combative sports and martial arts have always made a covenant with themselves, knowing that their capability is greater than the average person to harm someone, that they take double restraint and ensure that they do not take any kind of action that would cause harm to someone. It is not only the Prime Minister's position, but it is by the very fact that he is trained in these martial arts, he has a double duty to be responsible for the kind of strength that he yields. This should have been known by the Prime Minister and should be one of his highest commitments to himself.

What came up in the last question and answer session was interesting.

I would like to read into the record section 265(1) of the Criminal Code, which states:

A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose;...

We are not all lawyers here, but we sit as legislators. People should be well aware of the common law and certainly mindful of when we come close to or intend to break the law. I will leave that for the record and ask the Prime Minister to contemplate that section of the Criminal Code.

Finally, I am gravely concerned about the pattern of behaviour that has led us to today. To begin this session of Parliament, instead of the government implementing its agenda and campaign promises, it began spitefully repealing legislation. I do not remember a time in the history of the House when a government began by ensuring it tore down everything the previous government did.

Then it quickly moved to do something that Liberals said they would never do, and that is to shut down debate. It did not take very long at all. They not only shut it down once, but did it repeatedly, bill after bill.

Then the Liberals did something truly unprecedented. They changed the legislative calendar so members of Parliament would not even know what bill was coming up. Therefore, it would be impossible for them to effectively represent the very people who elected them to come here. This was done wantonly and without apology. Then, of course, the draconian motion to essentially remove all of the tools that the opposition has to represent the 60%-plus of people who did not vote for a Liberal member of Parliament is cause for real concern.

There is a pattern of behaviour that culminated last night with the Prime Minister leaving his seat, crossing the aisle, barging through opposition members to grab the opposition whip, drag him forward, and then get out of his seat a second time to confront the opposition again. This pattern of behaviour is very troubling and causes me great concern about where we go from here.

I have heard the apology by the Prime Minister. I hope it was sincere. One thing was said this morning during the National Prayer Breakfast. This morning's speaker said that we would know when someone had actually had a change of heart because the person would behave differently. We will be watching for that new behaviour, that new spirit of decorum, and willingness to work with the opposition, so we can continue to serve our constituents, be responsible to those who elected us, and, as we say every day, make good laws and serve ordinary Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 10th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the decade of darkness and the cuts in military spending. Sometimes Canadians do not understand just how much that impacts us at home, how much it impacts manufacturing, how much it impacts the hundreds of reservists in the greater city of Hamilton, in a riding I represent in that area, and how it would affect us during national disasters when we would need to call on our own military.

Would my colleague expand on just how much this will impact the average Canadian on a day-to-day basis?

[Foreign Affairs, May 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we know the regime that leads Iran exports terror, supports terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, imprisons, tortures and executes their own people and others. This regime does not even have the decency to return the remains of Canadian citizen, Zahra Kazemi.

If the Minister of Foreign Affairs is not willing to stand up to a regime like this, then what does he stand for?

[Iran, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the steps that our Conservative government took in trying to coax Iran into halting its nuclear ambitions by way of an aggressive sanctions program. The Iranian regime truly felt the impact of global sanctions on Iran; so much so that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called the day sanctions were lifted “a golden page” in the country's history.

Iran has a long history as a vicious actor in the Middle East: exporting terror globally, supplying military assistance to Assad in Syria and to Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as routinely threatening the destruction of our friend and ally, Israel. A commander of the IRGC said as recently as March, “Even if they build a wall around Iran, our missile program will not stop”.

Any Liberal plan to abandon sanctions against Iran would overturn our principled stand by the previous Conservative government. The evidence is clear: the Tehran regime commits horrible human rights violations against its own people and supports terror throughout the Middle East and incitement against Israel.

The Conservatives still see Iran for what it is and would rather judge Iran by its actions than by its words.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I articulated some of it, but I will say that I am a person who is dedicated to the separation of jurisdictions. In case there are some members who might think that I was suggesting that the federal government would impose some kind of regime in regard to the operation or execution of health care, which is a provincial jurisdiction, I was not saying that.

What I was saying is that, certainly, the current Liberals have been willy nilly with the till already, committing billions to other things. I think that, on this very important question, they could take some of those infrastructure dollars that they have already committed and set aside those dollars for hospice construction. They should then make sure, in their deliberations that they are having right now with the provinces in regard to a health accord, that they make it very clear that any future expansion of funds would be based on a good accountability in regard to the increase of palliative care across the country.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I think that is exactly the reason this debate is not only an emotional one but a profoundly intense one. The fact is that we have this June 6 date looming over us while we are dealing with such a huge question; that of life itself. It is a question that the Province of Quebec took six years to deal with. It is a question that the country of Belgium took 10 years to deal with. However, we have to deal with it now in such a short time frame, and I understand the expeditious manner in which we have to proceed.

That said, I think it was incumbent upon the Liberals, prior to tabling this legislation, that their own principles that they mentioned in their own platform should have been part of this legislation or should have even preceded this legislation in the sense of making sure that every Canadian had the better option, the option to be able to go to a place where they are loved, and for those people who do not have any family, places where they could get relief from their pain and be with people who care for them right to their last days. That was not included in this legislation.

I hope the Liberals would be open to making sure that part of their infrastructure dollars would be set aside for hospice construction, and that they would also be negotiating specifically with provinces right now to delineate funds specifically for palliative care so that the service is enhanced rather than it going into the general fund of provinces and not seeing the light of day to serve people who need it.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I must say at the outset that the prayer we began our session with this morning, that we would be mindful of making good laws and serving Canadians, has never meant so much to me, and I think many of my colleagues here today, anytime it has ever been said from the Speaker's chair.

I would like to thank my colleagues and members opposite for their thoughts and words on this deep, ethical, moral, legal, and religious question. While I may not agree with all the points that have been made thus far, I do not doubt for one second that the comments of all members are truly heartfelt, genuine, reflective, and respectful.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to address all the concerns of the bill, such as, but not limited to—as my colleague the member for Lethbridge has so eloquently articulated—the poisonous change in our cultural mindset the bill will likely encourage, reducing the value of life to a measure of ability or function rather than its inherent worth and dignity, and causing Canadians who would never have considered taking their own life before to do so.

As the member for Scarborough—Guildwood mentioned, the bill would be under expansionary pressure from the day it comes into effect, and where we could end up is troubling.

The peril that I do not think has been fully addressed is that in which those in vulnerable communities could find themselves.

As I said, because time is limited, I am going to focus upon two issues, but again, my serious concerns are not limited to these alone. First is the regrettable absence of more discussion and action on palliative and hospice care as a precursor to this legislation. Second is the need and the duty of all members here to respect and protect those physicians and health care professionals who object on conscience.

Before I get into these two points, I want to offer my reflections on where we have come from on this issue.

It was only six years ago that we debated the same issue and voted down the private member's bill, Bill C-384, of a former member of this House. It should be noted that this was the second attempt at the same private member's bill by the former member, who had previously introduced Bill C-407.

I will say that I voted against and spoke out against the bills, not only because of my own personal convictions, but also because of my steadfast belief that those bills did not uphold the moral obligation we have as parliamentarians to protect the vulnerable and the inherent dignity of all life.

Bill C-384 and Bill C-407 were seriously flawed because they sent us down a path of unintended consequences. They were that slippery slope that has so often been spoken of here in this chamber, regarding the debate of ethical dilemmas that our families, doctors, and health care workers would face.

My reservation then is sustained today. Why is there not more emphasis on palliative care?

Is it not better to support quality palliative and end-of-life care for Canadians, so they will never need to think that euthanasia or assisted suicide is the only option, or better option, for their suffering?

Is it not our duty to uphold the value and dignity of life in this manner?

In my own home community of Hamilton, we have outstanding organizations like Emmanuel House and the Dr. Bob Kemp Hospice, which work on a daily basis to make end of life better for people. I know hospices are doing outstanding work in all the communities across this country.

I recognize that, in the view of the Supreme Court's Carter decision, we are faced with a new reality, one where we need to respect its decision vis-à-vis the charter rights of those in dire circumstances while still ensuring the dignity of life is upheld. However, I am very concerned that there was no further investigation, no rigorous effort to enhance palliative care and invest in hospice construction, in advance of this legislation or in conjunction with it.

While the federal government's response to the Supreme Court's Carter decision makes reference to the need to support improvements of a full range of end-of-life care options, it does little about it, other than acknowledging it as a non-legislative response.

I do not think that is good enough, and I believe all Canadians do not think that is good enough either.

Instead of a vague reference to a multi-year health accord that would include home care and palliative care as one option, where was the commitment in the throne speech? Where was the commitment in the budget?

If the commitment is serious, why is it not backed up with funding?

This is the missing piece. If we are going to go down the legislative path of physician-assisted dying because of charter rights, then we in this place have a duty, and the Government of Canada has a duty, to have first acted upon palliative and hospice care.

That was the viewpoint of two Senate studies, which I cited back in 2010 when I spoke out against Bill C-384. First, in 1995, there was the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide that in its report, “Of Life and Death”, made a number of recommendations to improve access to palliative care services, standards of care, and training of health care professionals.

In 2000, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology tabled another report, titled “Quality End-of-Life Care: The Right of Every Canadian”, which again recommended a strategy and vast improvements to palliative and end-of-life care, as well as support for family caregivers, home care, research, and surveillance.

It breaks my heart, and I know the hearts of all members in the House, that people are suffering. Just this past summer, in the middle of the election campaign, I watched my own younger brother succumb to the ravages of lymphatic cancer, and I was grateful for the care, understanding, and compassion of everyone at Emmanuel House, the hospice where he stayed in his final days.

I know that this bill attempts to address those individuals who have given up hope; yet I believe there are, most often, better ways to address their suffering. It is our obligation to do everything possible with palliative and hospice care, to give a modicum of hope, comfort, and peace to those suffering at the end of their lives and to their families who are also suffering. Once again, I believe this discussion should have preceded this bill.

The final point I want to touch on today is one that I know other members have already raised, but please allow me to amplify their concerns. That is the protection of physicians' conscience rights and, quite frankly, those of the other health care professionals and caregivers on a doctor's team who might be placed in the circumstances that this bill would allow.

First, I do not think there is a shred of doubt that we must offer clear and indisputable protections to those who object on ethical, moral, or religious grounds. In these matters of life and death, that is more than the right thing to do; it is the only thing to do.

Second, I believe that, to send this important signal to the medical community, families, individuals who are suffering, and all Canadians, these conscience protections for physicians must be included in the bill itself, and not just in the preamble. The bill needs to include a punitive measure for those who would seek to pressure, force, or coerce anyone to assist someone in taking his or her life.

I am thankful for the opportunity to offer these reflections. I know every member of the House will be doing a lot of thinking, soul searching, and prayerful consideration as we grapple with this legislation. I sincerely hope and pray that we continue to do so with extreme caution and care. God bless Canada.

[Petitions, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to pass legislation which would recognize preborn children as separate victims when they are injured or killed during the commission of an offence against their mothers, allowing two charges to be laid against the offender instead of just one.

[Petitions, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first one is on the same note as my colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka, where the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to maintain the listing of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a state supporter of terrorism, pursuant to section 6.1 of the State Immunity Act, for as long as the Iranian regime continues to sponsor terrorism.