House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 48% of the vote.
The Environment May 4th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, they are still misleading Canadians.
On the one hand, the Liberal Party's fundraising material claims that the government does have a national climate change plan in place. On the other hand, when asked to show Canadians that long-promised plan, the Prime Minister has steadfastly refused to do so.
Will he acknowledge that the Liberals have no plan?
The Environment May 4th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, it appears that our boxing Prime Minister is playing rope-a-dope with Canadians.
He recently sent out a fundraising letter praising his new Canada-wide climate change plan. However, Canadians are asking, what plan is that? Is it the one that was promised in Paris within 90 days, which he failed to deliver in Vancouver?
If there is a climate change plan that only Liberal insiders know about, will the Prime Minister now table it, so that all Canadians can see how painful it will be and who will pay the costs?
Criminal Code May 2nd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I want to be very sensitive to the hon. member's comments about not using the children of Attawapiskat as an unnecessary element in this debate, but I think it bears noting that this is a critical issue across Canada when our first nations are struggling with an epidemic of suicide. I look at this legislation in all earnestness and I see how it flies in the face of what we are trying to do, which is not only to protect and defend human life but to create an environment within Canada where life can be lived in a way that is not only happy but productive and contributes to building a better society.
With respect to his specific question, how do we approach this ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada? The government well knows it does have remedies available to address the ruling of the court. It has tools within the charter itself to respond to this decision.
When legislation is so fundamentally flawed, as is Bill C-14, as a person of conscience, as a person of faith, as a person who loves this country dearly, it is my duty to speak up against this kind of legislation and to say, no, there are better ways of addressing this.
I am so pleased with my colleague who has raised the issue of palliative care consistently in this House. That should be the first focus of the work we are doing to help people who find themselves in these circumstances.
Criminal Code May 2nd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that we actually did take an active role in addressing the Carter decision. However, our government at the time was taking its time to get this right. Broad consultations across the country is the least that we could do with something this important, this critical to our foundational values.
Since when is the taking of a life defined as health care? That is my struggle. This country was founded upon values that respected the value of human life and protecting human lives. This is a huge step in the wrong direction, one that I am committed to resisting, as a parliamentarian and someone who deeply loves this country.
This legislation is a very dangerous step on a slippery slope of which we do not know where it will lead, but it is very clear it will lead to much greater liberalization and cast a much greater net in the future.
Criminal Code May 2nd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add my voice to those who have expressed serious concerns about this legislation. Bill C-14 would, for the first time ever in Canada, establish a national right to die and the right to seek assistance in the act of committing suicide.
I acknowledge that the issue of assisted suicide is highly complex and of course deeply sensitive. Like it or not, the issue has been dropped in our laps by the Supreme Court of Canada and each one of us has been elected to wrestle with this very tough issue. I hope that, at the very least, we will have the courage to reject solutions that, on their face, may, by some, be characterized as progress, but in reality degrade rather than elevate the intrinsic value of each and every human life.
I believe that every human life is God given and is deserving of dignity, value, and protection. Indeed, from my earliest years as a public official in the community of Abbotsford, I have made it clear that my constituents can and should always expect me to defend human life against all threats. Today is no different. The legislation we are debating today represents a watershed moment in the life of this country, one in which our fundamental values are being re-examined and tested.
I believe Bruce Clemenger said it best when he stated:
With the introduction of Bill C-14, Canada has crossed a significant threshold.... The decriminalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide constitutes a fundamental shift in how we as a society value and understand life and the duty of care we owe one another. Never before have we as a nation said that intentional killing is an appropriate response to suffering, or that we should take the life of the one who suffers rather than finding ways to alleviate their suffering.
Let me begin by commenting on the role that the Supreme Court should or should not play in articulating a right to die. As a lawyer and lawmaker, I have the greatest of respect for the rule of law, for the courts which sustain it, and for the individuals who occupy the bench. It is the rule of law and our court system that are intended to act as a bulwark against oppression and discrimination and defend our prevailing national values, including our personal freedom and our democratic institutions.
That said, it is eminently within our prerogative as MPs to also respectfully question and challenge the very decisions that our courts make and to suggest what particular issues should more appropriately be left for Parliament to decide. It is my view that matters of protecting life and the taking of life should remain the sole domain and prerogative of the duly elected representatives of the people of Canada, namely, the members of the House.
More to the point, many Canadians are having great difficulty grasping how the court would presume to specifically direct Parliament to implement legislation that effectively creates a right to die and a state-sanctioned role in the taking of a life, all under the threat of the court doing so on its own. Therefore, let me be very clear. I am deeply sympathetic to the suffering of so many whose conditions are terminal, who have concluded that there is no medical hope for healing, who suffer from unbearable pain, whose quality of life has been eroded beyond measure, or who consider themselves an undue burden upon family, friends, and their caregivers. That is exactly why our first and primary focus should be to improve and extend 21st-century palliative care to all Canadians whose lives could be measurably improved by it.
Is it not ironic that at the same time that we are debating the state-sanctioned taking of a human life for compassionate reasons, the Liberal government has failed to follow through on its solemn promise to expand the availability of palliative care. The promised $3 billion would have gone a long way to ensuring that palliative care becomes an essential part of the end-of-life decision-making process.
Instead of barrelling ahead with active euthanasia legislation, is it not incumbent upon us as lawmakers to first explore every opportunity to provide compassionate and effective palliative care to those who are in the terminal stages of disease and health? We owe Canadians so much more than simply an ill-considered rush to implement a directive from Canada's Supreme Court.
A cursory study of assisted suicide regimes around the world quickly reveals that even the most stringent and well-meaning safeguards are never completely effective in ensuring that no wrongful deaths occur. Jurisdictions like Belgium have acknowledged that of the thousands of assisted suicides that have taken place, some have taken the lives of those who could not or did not provide an informed consent, or who otherwise should not have died.
In this country, here in Canada, we abolished capital punishment exactly because we could not guarantee that an innocent life would not be taken. Yet, today, we are being asked to take the morbidly contradictory position of saying that notwithstanding that some vulnerable or unwilling individuals would lose their lives, we are prepared to take that very risk. The hypocrisy is astounding.
I also note that Bill C-14 fails to properly address the right of physicians, nursing professionals, and health care institutions to refuse to participate in the taking of a human life. Leaving it to the provinces, territories, and professional associations to regulate is not the answer, and will simply result in a patchwork of directives that ultimately compromise the ability of doctors and nurses to refuse any direct or indirect participation in assisted suicide.
It is highly likely that a health care professional in one jurisdiction will find his or her right to conscientious objection protected, while a colleague in another province is left without such a fundamental right. That is unconscionable and a clear abdication of the government's obligation to protect the rights of all Canadians, irrespective of where they practice medicine.
The right of medical professionals to refuse direct or indirect participation in assisted suicide should never, ever, be subject to negotiation or compromise. On that measure alone, Bill C-14 fails the test.
Many Canadians have expressed a legitimate fear that Bill C-14 will become the precursor to much more radical right-to-die policies. They are right. I have no doubt that the legislation before us, if passed, will very quickly become the thin edge of the wedge to secure future liberalization of assisted suicide to include children, the mentally and physically disabled, the chronically ill, the elderly, and those no longer considered to be productive contributors to Canada. Is that really the Canada we were elected to build?
This debate exposes an astonishing irony. Today we are experiencing, to our national shame, an unprecedented epidemic of suicides of our youth on first nations reserves. In response, the federal government is undertaking extraordinary efforts to prevent such suicides from happening in the future.
Yet, at the same time, here we are, in this House, debating an assisted suicide bill that the special parliamentary committee recommended should in the future extend the right to die to vulnerable children, the very group we are working so hard to save in first nations communities. Colleagues, what are we thinking?
Over the years, I have gotten to know many doctors and nurses, and have on numerous occasions dialogued with them on the issue of euthanasia. Our health care professionals are deeply compassionate, caring people who go to great lengths to ensure that patients who are terminal and suffering from great pain are made comfortable. They exercise a high level of discretion when they administer medications that alleviate pain, even where such medications may, on occasion, hasten the patient's death. The government's introduction of Bill C-14 failed to take that into account.
Let me close. More than a dozen times in the past this Parliament has considered and consistently rejected assisted suicide legislation. For whatever reason, our Supreme Court has now seen fit to insert itself into this debate by reversing itself on the Rodriguez decision. Its directive to the House to implement assisted suicide legislation calls upon us to act courageously and reject that directive.
Let us resist the urge to tread upon the steep and slippery slope of a policy whose implications are unclear, and whose trajectory represents a fundamental undermining of our foundational values.
We are faced with a monumental decision, one that challenges us to reaffirm the pre-eminence and inviolability of a human life. May we choose wisely and reject this deeply flawed bill.
The Environment April 21st, 2016
Mr. Speaker, it is not only about a carbon-tax grab.
Earlier this week in question period, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change was asked when she would make a decision on the $36 billion Pacific NorthWest LNG project in B.C. She flippantly said, “We will make a decision when we are ready to make a decision”.
When will the minister abandon her plan for a harmful carbon-tax grab, get out of the way, and allow Canada's resources to be shipped to market?
The Environment April 21st, 2016
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week at committee, I asked the Minister of Environment and Climate Change about Canada's competitive advantage in carbon pricing. The only response I could get was that China was considering a plan to price carbon and that this was a game changer.
Therefore, we are left with a minister who turns to China for inspiration on carbon taxes, and a Prime Minister who expresses admiration for the basic dictatorship that is China.
When will the Liberals abandon their plan for a carbon-tax grab and focus on supporting Canadians?
Government Policies April 21st, 2016
Mr. Speaker, fishing season is here, so the Prime Minister first convinced Canadians to swallow hook, line, and sinker his promise to run modest deficits. Then he flip-flopped, announcing huge deficits and breaking his promise to balance the budget.
Canada's small businesses, hoping to reel in a tax cut, were betrayed by the finance minister, who wormed his way out of keeping that promise.
The justice minister then took the bait and got snagged on a conflict of interest by attending a fundraiser at which lawyers angled for a trophy catch.
The floundering trade minister was lured into swallowing $20,000 of taxpayers' money just to appear on the Bill Maher show, and we all know what a flop that was.
Then casting her line directly at the premiers, the environment minister failed to land the big one, a national climate change plan.
The fishy smell is from the Liberal government, which, like a fish out of water, has flipped and flopped on every promise it has made. Canadians cannot wait for the end of the fishing season.
Natural Resources April 20th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough, because the minister first claimed that her decision would be based on science. Then the natural resources minister proudly contradicted her by saying that the decision would be political. Now the minister simply says she will make the decision whenever she feels like it. That is the ultimate uncertainty.
Does the minister not realize that her inaction is risking a $36 billion job-creating investment in Canada?
Natural Resources April 20th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, during question period yesterday, the Minister of Environment was specifically asked when she would make a decision on the Pacific NorthWest LNG project in British Columbia. Her answer shocked all of us. She flippantly said, “We will make a decision when we are ready to make a decision”.
When will the minister realize that the uncertainty her government has created is causing investors to flee Canada and is jeopardizing a $36 billion job-creating investment in Canada?