Francis Drouin

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the opposition are making unfounded allegations.

In early July, without even knowing the facts, the leader of the Bloc Québécois accused the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party of being corrupt. If we are corrupt, then all they have to do is send their evidence and testimony to the RCMP and let it do its job.

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great comment, but I completely disagree with the comments he has made. Listening to that particular member talk again, it is as if the government has provided absolutely zero testimony to committees on this particular affair. It is as if the government provided zero documents. They already have 5,000. I will remind the member to look at the website. If he cares so much about the documents that were released and the particular rules that govern the disclosure of those documents, perhaps he should just ask the member for Carleton to educate him on with that disclosure act is.

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House to speak to this bogus motion.

This morning I got up and took some time to visit with young entrepreneurs because this is Small Business Week. Their business is called Kyan Cuisine. Our government's support was very important to them. Their revenue plunged because of COVID-19. Their products were on supermarket shelves, but, unfortunately, they had to adjust. They got help from a program that got money out the door to community development corporations across the country, including the Prescott-Russell Community Development Corporation, the PRCDC. I want to congratulate John Candie and the PRCDC team in my riding, who are doing excellent work to support our businesses.

They were able to do it with the $20,000 they received, which enabled them to regroup, go digital, create a website and reach new customers. This morning, I was happy to hear that these young entrepreneurs can keep earning a living and meeting a really important need in our community.

About a month and a half ago, the Conservatives had their leadership race and I thought we were going to hear a different tone from them. I thought we were really going to hear a different tone from what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle demonstrated in the House of Commons. However, I can see that the Conservative Party of Canada is dead. I heard the Leader of the Opposition mention he wants to take Canada back. He took the Conservative Party way back, way back to the nineties of the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance. That is what that particular party on the other side of the House has become.

Am I the only one who views this Tory supply motion as wanting to set up a McCarthy House committee that has absolutely no value and no purpose to serve Canadians? It is trying to perhaps go after the Liberals the way the former McCarthy committee tried to go after American values in the U.S. a few decades ago. That particular committee would be a witch hunt. It is a drive-by smear, and that has to stop. Do not take my word for it. Take the words of Kory Teneycke, a former Conservative, who continues to hate Liberals, who wrote a pretty good article about the drive-by smears that the leader of the official opposition and all members of the official opposition are doing on people who said yes to serving Canadians.

When will it be enough for the official opposition? When will it be enough? They will not take the word of the Ethics Commissioner who, by the way, denied the request from the member for Carleton and the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. He said that their drive-by smear of the chief of staff and her husband had absolutely no merit. What was put in this motion is the same damn thing. They put the same request in the motion, so tell me how this is not a drive-by smear.

Listening to the official opposition, it is as if there was zero accountability that happened during the summer. Just before we were prorogued, 5,000 documents were provided to the committee. They went through it. They even created a website. Then the Prime Minister appeared before that committee.

Again, do not compare the Prime Minister to the Almighty; compare him to the alternative. All of the members who were sitting in the House almost seven years ago, when they were asked to pass a motion in the House to have the former prime minister appear before a committee, what did those members who are now the official opposition do? They voted against it. That is a true lack of transparency. This side of the House and the Prime Minister believe in transparency and appeared before the committee, something that the Conservatives would have never done in the 10 years in this place they were on this side of the House.

We have the Prime Minister who appeared before the committee. We have multiple ministers who appeared before the committee. We have ADMs, deputy ministers and a bunch of witnesses who appeared before the finance committee, and still to this day it is not enough. Now what we are seeing is that they are proposing this witch hunt committee proposal, which makes absolutely no sense and goes after innocent people who have zero business in this affair. I will not let this happen and I will be voting against this particular motion because it makes absolutely no sense.

We know that, as soon as the WE affair started to make the news, the leader of the Bloc Québécois came out and said that the Prime Minister needed to resign, that there was corruption and that they were sure of it. It was the same thing for the leader of the official opposition. He said that the Prime Minister needed to resign and there was corruption happening.

Corruption is a Criminal Code offence, and if they have evidence, they can submit it to the RCMP. They will do their job. In fact, both parties called the RCMP and to this day we are still waiting for charges. We are still waiting to have people go to jail. For the only member of Parliament who went to jail, it was not a parliamentary committee that decided whether that particular member of Parliament should go to jail; it was the cops. It was a Conservative member of Parliament, and they should be ashamed of that.

I have advice for the Leader of the Opposition and the advice does not necessarily come from me. It comes from health officials across Canada. It is a simple piece of advice to just wear a mask when he cannot physically distance himself. Time and again, and my colleague the parliamentary secretary mentioned a few examples, the Leader of the Opposition was taking pictures without physically distancing. Again, this weekend, we saw him with Mr. Kenney, who is no longer in the Ottawa bubble. Therefore, he should wear a mask. He is the leader of the official opposition and he is supposed to lead by example. If he wants to be Prime Minister one day, he should lead by example.

When folks are talking to me in the riding, they want to know that we are there for them in times of need, especially in times of COVID-19. The wage subsidy has been a great program to support our businesses, as are the allocations that I have mentioned previously with regard to supporting our businesses.

In terms of funding for businesses, the Canada emergency wage subsidy helps our entrepreneurs who need to reinvent themselves and go online. I am thinking about the restaurant industry needing help to get through this second wave we are sadly in the middle of. I was hoping to debate a motion today that would offer a way to help our businesses across Canada. I think it is important to support them in order to help them get through this crisis and ensure their ongoing presence in our urban centres.

I will close by simply saying that I am extremely disappointed in the opposition members. I am not surprised. I have been here for five years, but I have been watching them for more than five years. What was true in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2015 and 2019 is still true today. Opposition members are behaving in the same irresponsible way they always did and are bringing partisanship to a whole new level. It is pure partisanship like in the days of the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance in the 1990s.

[Criminal Code, October 9th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I believe it was taken out because, in terms of practicality, it served no purpose. The Minister of Justice and many of our colleagues heard from families, now that we have been living with Bill C-14 for over three years, about the 10-day period. Patients who have already made the decision that they need medical assistance consulted with their doctors, nurses and families about that extra 10-day period. Why is not 15 days? Why is it not five days instead of 10? They said it served no purpose.

[Criminal Code, October 9th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, quite frankly, I have no opinion on the matter and will therefore rely on the experts.

I know the Bloc Québécois and the NDP support the bill. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will have an opportunity to examine this more thoroughly in the coming weeks.

[Criminal Code, October 9th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the previous bill required two witnesses and this bill only requires one witness. This was actually raised with the Minister of Justice. I believe this will correct the issues that arose from the previous bill, Bill C-14. The current bill strikes the right balance to make sure there is access to a doctor or nurse who has knowledge of the particular patients in question.

[Criminal Code, October 9th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I certainly was not a member of the justice committee, but I do believe the rationale for including the advance consent in this particular case was because of the Audrey Parker case in Nova Scotia.

I can also say that the Canadian Medical Association, I believe, is supporting this particular legislation in accordance with what we are presenting today.

[Criminal Code, October 9th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to wish you a happy Thanksgiving.

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the Government of Canada's consultation process to inform amendments to the federal legislation on medical assistance in dying. My colleagues who hosted the round tables, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, had the privilege of hearing the perspectives of experts and other key stakeholders.

In September of last year, the Superior Court of Quebec handed down its decision in the Truchon and Gladu case.

The court found that the eligibility criteria of the federal and Quebec provincial legislation on medical assistance in dying that required a person to be at the point of reasonably foreseeable natural death, or at the end of life, were unconstitutional.

The federal government did not appeal the Truchon decision. Despite the short time frame, our government felt it was critical that any amendments to the law should be informed by evidence and feedback provided by Canadians, provincial and territorial governments, and key stakeholders.

That is why, during January and early February, our government launched an online public consultation and hosted round tables with stakeholders from across the country. During this process, participants shared their views on key aspects of the law governing MAID, including eligibility requirements, safeguards and advance requests. An online survey led by the Department of Justice ran for two weeks in January. The survey closed with over 300,000 responses: the largest number of responses the department has ever seen for any public consultation.

Our government also hosted a series of 10 roundtable meetings in eight cities across the country. More than one hundred participants representing nearly every province attended these national and regional meetings, including academic experts, health care providers, medical and nursing regulators and other stakeholders. While the meetings included some representation from indigenous communities, a specific roundtable was also held with indigenous stakeholders.

Our government’s ultimate objective is to have a law that facilitates access for those who are eligible for MAID and provides protections for vulnerable people.

Feedback from both the online survey and round table discussions indicated wide support for removing the eligibility requirement that an individual's natural death be reasonably foreseeable. There is general comfort among Canadians and stakeholders with the idea that MAID should be available to eligible individuals who are suffering intolerably, but not necessarily at the end of their life.

Many organizations representing persons with disabilities expressed concerns about the removal of the requirement for reasonably foreseeable natural death, pointing to the potential for societal harm if disability were to be seen as a reason to terminate life.

Concerns were raised about extending MAID to include specific medical conditions where individuals may be more vulnerable, in particular, to those with mental illness. Most felt it was too early to allow MAID for persons with mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition and advocated taking additional time to study this issue.

The concerns about access to medically assisted death for individuals whose sole underlying medical condition was a mental illness were consistent with the findings of the Council of Canadian Academies report on this topic. As mandated by the 2016 legislation, our government commissioned three independent reviews on topics that were not included in the law at the time: requests by mature minors, advance requests and requests where a mental illness is the sole underlying condition. Of the council's three reports, the one addressing mental illness was the source of the greatest divergence among the experts. Ultimately, they could not reach consensus on ways to address the complexities and mitigate the risk associated with mental illness and MAID.

Many round table participants expressed support for creating a two-track system of safeguards, depending on whether a person's death is reasonably foreseeable. Many respondents to the online survey were open to the idea of some stronger safeguards for people who are suffering but not dying.

The proposed legislative changes include new or modified safeguards for individuals when their death is not reasonably foreseeable. It is proposed that one of the physicians or nurse practitioners assessing an individual's eligibility for MAID would need to have expertise in the individual's medical condition. In addition, individuals would be subject to a 90-day assessment period to ensure enough time is devoted to exploring relevant aspects of the person’s situation and to discussing possible options to alleviate their suffering.

During the round tables, participants expressed overwhelming support for removing the current requirement for two persons to witness an individual's MAID request. They cited the difficulties in finding independent witnesses based on the current definition in the law, which excludes health care providers and personal support workers.

Many individuals living in nursing homes or other residential settings have limited family or social networks. The amended legislation would reduce the required number of witnesses to one, and would not permit individuals who are paid to provide personal care or health care to take on this role. Anyone in a position to benefit financially, or in any material way, from the person's death would not be allowed to act as a witness.

The witness's role is strictly to confirm that the person seeking MAID has actually signed the request themselves. Safeguards, such as ensuring that the person signed the request voluntarily, are the responsibility of the practitioner who provides MAID, not the witness. We also clearly heard that there is no obvious benefit to the 10-day reflection period. We are proposing to remove this requirement from the legislation.

The third area of consultation was on the issue of advance requests. This is also one of the topics studied by the Council of Canadian Academies as part of their independent reviews.

Although many people speak of advance requests in general terms, the issue can be very different depending on an individual's situation relative to a diagnosis and when they are eligible for MAID.

The CCA report pointed out that not all advance requests are created equal and outlined several scenarios. It noted the most straightforward scenario is where an individual is nearing death, and has been found eligible for MAID, but fears losing capacity to consent prior to the procedure.

This was the case, for example, in the widely publicized case of Audrey Parker: the Nova Scotia woman battling late-stage breast cancer. She feared that she would lose the ability to provide consent later on, before the date she ideally wished to have the medically assisted death she was authorized to receive.

A more complicated scenario arises when an individual has been diagnosed with a disease such as Alzheimer's but has not yet come to the point where their circumstances make them eligible for MAID. However, the person may wish to outline the conditions under which they would like MAID to be provided in the future, when they no longer have capacity to provide final consent.

Nearly 80% of respondents to the online survey agreed that the revised law should allow for advance requests in both scenarios. However, there were concerns about allowing advance requests post-diagnosis. There was near unanimous support to refer this more complex scenario to consideration during the parliamentary review process.

The amendments we are proposing reflect the overwhelming support for the first scenario by permitting individuals who have been assessed as eligible for MAID, and whose death is reasonably foreseeable, to provide consent in advance if they lose capacity before their preferred date.

Our government is committed to maintaining an ongoing dialogue with indigenous groups on the topic of MAID, to ensure their families and their many diverse voices continue to be heard.

Lastly, it is important to note that, across the board, participants in the round table consultations all agreed on the importance of having appropriate health and social supports in place, including palliative care, assistance for persons with disabilities and mental health services, to protect against individuals choosing assisted dying due to the lack of adequate supports to live a dignified life.

[Yves Berthiaume, October 8th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate Yves Berthiaume, who was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal by the Governor General last July.

Mr. Berthiaume has been a funeral director for several decades. He was the president of Optimist International in 2004. He created the first francophone Optimist district outside Quebec in eastern Ontario. Although the terms “optimist” and “funeral director” may appear to be opposites, Yves Berthiaume knew how to talk to youth about death and grief. He even created a program to educate youth about death and grief, which has now been implemented across Canada.

I thank Yves Berthiaume for his years of service to young people. I sincerely thank his wife, Ginette, and his children, Lise Ann, Marie-Lyne and Catherine, for sharing their husband and father not just with our community, but with the entire world community.

Yves, you have known me since I was a young boy and you probably know me better than I know myself. I would personally like to thank you—

[Digital Government, October 2nd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic has upended many aspects of our lives.

Our government is making sure that no one has to face this pandemic alone. Our government has provided important benefits, such as the Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada emergency student benefit, at a time when the public service was making significant efforts to shift to telework.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Digital Government provide us with an update on how the government and the public service have adapted to provide these important services to Canadians?