Gerald Soroka

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, there is a very big concern when we are dealing with mental health. How do we determine that someone who has a mental health condition is in a stable mental health state and make sure they understand everything they are doing? This is not like someone going to buy a vehicle who is not sure they really like the colour or whatever else. This is something that is irremediable.

Definitely, we need to reexamine this and make sure we have a logical approach to mental health.

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, that very delusional member does not understand what the role of the government is. It is to make sure that the government provides what Canadians need and want.

Unfortunately, Canadians are finding that the Liberal government is failing on so many fronts. That is why the member is being desperate tonight and is trying to say that it is our problem, not theirs. Members can trust me: When we form government, we will fix a lot of the issues that the Liberal government has put upon Canadians. During our election, we will allow everything to come out in our platform. I look forward to releasing that when there is an election in the future.

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, there is a big misconception in this House about the opposition. We are not going to come forward and start laying out our plan for the next election, as to everything we are going to do.

Believe it or not, the Liberals would steal everything we are proposing. That is why, I have to admit, we are not going to lay everything out.

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that this has been one of my big things. Even when I was a mayor, I talked about the mental health of Canadians.

We can solve a lot of societal problems if we have a better handle on mental health. In order to do that, we have to fund appropriately and properly. One of the big challenges, when we start looking at mental health, is that it is probably going to take at least a 20-year period before we start seeing some real benefits to society. Unfortunately, governments are only elected every four years; therefore, they are not willing to put in the real money that is needed. They often use a band-aid approach.

We need to start looking at a long-range plan to enhance and assist our mental health in Canada.

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

Bill C-62, no. 2, suggests that we pause the expansion of medical assistance in dying, known as MAID, to people suffering from mental illness. The Liberals have shown time and again that they consistently pass legislation without the careful consideration needed for such significant changes to our society. This discussion is not just legislative; it is about how we value human life and the impact of the government's choices on all Canadians. In thinking about extending MAID to include mental illness, there is a need for a deep understanding of the complexities and uncertainties in diagnosing and predicting mental health outcomes.

Evidence to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying showed a worrying truth: Clinicians often struggle to predict whether mental health conditions are irremediable, and they have a 50% chance of being wrong. This alarming fact points to a big problem with the proposed expansion; this is the chance of making permanent choices based on uncertain medical opinions. Mental health involves biological, psychological and social elements. Recovery is not always straightforward, and what seems irremediable at one point may improve with treatment.

Basing MAID on the idea that a mental illness cannot be cured shows a misunderstanding of the changing nature of mental health recovery. As the member for St. Albert—Edmonton put it, it is like flipping a coin on matters of life and death, a practice that is ethically troubling and goes against the idea of patient-focused care. Moreover, we cannot discuss MAID and mental illness without considering the wider issues of access to quality mental health care in Canada.

When people such as Canadian Paralympian and veteran Christine Gauthier are offered MAID from the government when simply requesting help with a wheelchair lift, it shows a worrying trend of suggesting MAID as a fix for systemic failures to providing proper care and support for those with disabilities and chronic conditions. This is not just one case. It reflects a larger problem, wherein essential services and supports are lacking; this drives people to consider MAID not because they want to but because they feel neglected by the Liberal government.

The risks of broadening MAID to include mental illness alone are complex, going beyond clinical doubts to wider social and ethical issues. It makes us question our dedication to mental health care, the value we place on lives touched by mental illness, and the kind of society we want to have. Do we face challenges with empathy, support and a commitment to better care, or do we settle for solutions that ignore the struggles Canadians face?

The Liberal government's approach to expanding MAID shows a wider trend of hasty law-making that leads to policies being introduced, then pulled back or changed after facing reality and public criticism. From errors in firearms legislation to heated debates on the carbon tax, the government often acts first and thinks later. This not only damages our law-making process but also lowers public trust in our ability to govern wisely and carefully.

The rush to include mental illness in MAID, without proper evidence or full discussions with mental health experts, ethicists and affected groups, shows a lack of regard for the careful and expert-led discussions that such a major policy change requires. The need to pause and rethink this expansion, via the bill, is an admission that the government's actions have been rash and poorly thought out.

This legislative step back, marked by two delays in implementation, is not just a minor issue; it is a clear sign of the dangers of choosing political speed over solid, evidence-based policy-making. It raises serious doubts about the government's commitment to responsible governance, which includes the need to fully explore, understand and foresee the effects of laws before they are passed. In this critical discussion on MAID, we must also consider the perspective of those directly affected by such policies. The voices of individuals and families living with mental illness must be central to our legislative process.

Their experiences and insights can provide invaluable guidance as we navigate the complexities of this issue. By engaging with these communities, we can ensure that our laws reflect the realities of those they impact most and uphold the principles of empathy and inclusion. Furthermore, the debate on MAID expansion underscores the need for comprehensive mental health services.

The government must prioritize the enhancement of mental health care infrastructure, ensuring that all Canadians have access to the support and treatment they require. By strengthening our mental health care system, we can address the root causes of despair and hopelessness that lead individuals to consider MAID, thereby affirming our commitment to life and well-being.

This moment also calls for a re-evaluation of our societal values and the role of government in safeguarding the dignity of every citizen. As policymakers, we have a duty to foster a culture that values every life, provides hope through support and resources, and respects the autonomy of individuals while carefully considering the ethical implications of life-ending interventions. This approach would not only address the immediate concerns surrounding MAID but would also contribute to a more compassionate and just society.

As we think about what this pause means, we must consider the lessons learned and push for a more thoughtful, consultative and evidence-based approach to making laws. The stakes are too high, and the chance for unintended harm too great, to accept anything less. In MAID's case, where ethics, law and personal choice intersect delicately, our responsibility to be extremely careful and considerate cannot be overstated.

The proposal for a pause on MAID's expansion clearly shows that the Liberal government's policy-making has been quick and poorly thought out. While this pause is needed, it points to a bigger issue of governance, where major legislative changes are made without enough foresight, discussion or understanding of the deep ethical implications. This pause reminds us of the dangers of enacting laws that deeply affect Canadians' lives and well-being, especially the most vulnerable. It shows the current Liberal government's failure to engage in a careful, evidence-based legislative process, preferring instead policies that match ideological aims rather than the complex realities of issues such as MAID and mental health.

This should be more than a brief stop; it should be a crucial time to rethink how policies, especially those about life and death, are made and applied. It questions the government's commitment to maintaining the highest standards of care, empathy and respect for all Canadians' dignity. We must demand greater legislative care and ethical responsibility from the government.

The discussion on MAID and mental illness needs a comprehensive approach that puts individuals' well-being and rights ahead of quick political gains.

It is time for a move towards more responsible governance, where policies are made with great care, are based on wide consultation, and reflect our collective values and ethical standards. Sadly, the current Liberal government seems to lack concern for any of these values.

The way forward should be marked by a dedication to thorough research, wide involvement and a deep respect for life's sanctity. Only by such a comprehensive approach can we ensure our legislative actions truly serve all Canadians, embodying the justice, empathy and respect that define our nation.

[Carbon Tax, February 9th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, Canadians face a cost of living crisis, made worse by the April 1 carbon tax hike.

Liberal-appointed senators gutted Bill C-234, stopping carbon tax carve-outs for farmers.

Canadians face higher prices, because when one taxes the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who ships the food, Canadians pay more for the food.

The Liberal plan to quadruple the carbon tax from 14¢ to 61¢ a litre is outrageous. By increasing this tax, the Liberals are contributing to the hardship of over two million Canadians relying on food banks. By pressuring senators to oppose carbon tax carve-outs, this Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

Conservatives demand that Bill C-234 be passed in its original form, to help farmers and families. Our common-sense plan is to axe the tax.

[Carbon Pricing, February 2nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, with an answer like that, I am not surprised Canadians cannot afford food, in a country where two million citizens are relying on food banks monthly. It is baffling to see the NDP-Liberal coalition push to quadruple the carbon tax. When we tax the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who delivers the food, Canadians are stuck with higher food prices.

Bill C-234 in its original form promises immediate relief. Will the Liberals discard the Senate's alterations, lift this tax burden and help Canadians afford their groceries?

[Carbon Pricing, February 2nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-234 is back in the House after Liberal-appointed senators stalled and gutted this crucial legislation. This bill is vital for exempting farmers from the carbon tax and would ease the high cost of Canadian food. However, as the carbon tax is set to quadruple, farmers will pay $1 billion by 2030 and will push food prices even higher.

Will the Liberals scrap the Senate amendments, remove the carbon tax from agriculture and make food more affordable for everyone?

[Polish Heritage Month, February 1st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I will give a recap because I am sure everyone has probably forgotten what I stated a few weeks ago.

As I said, I, like many other members of Parliament in the House, have a Polish history. My grandparents on my father's side were Ukrainian, but my great-grandparents on my mother's side were Polish.

Jacko and Mary Zatorski came from Poland in 1906. It is quite a few years ago they came to Canada, and the main reason they came was to build a better life for themselves. It was a very challenging time to bring a family of four young adults with them, as well as the baby Mary was carrying. They did prosper in their life here in Canada, which they started on a quarter of land outside of Skaro, Alberta, which is northeast of Edmonton.

My great-grandparents had 13 children, which was quite an accomplishment back then because having so many children with none of them perishing at childbirth was quite spectacular. Life was hard, just like it was for anybody else farming at that stage. There were not nearly the mechanisms at that time that are now available. They had the ability to build a house. It is quite remarkable, but I was able to go to their original homestead. Now, this was not the only house they built, as they built another house in I believe the thirties. The house was still standing. It was in quite a bit of disrepair, but at least it gave me an idea of what the house looked like, and it was quite interesting to see.

My grandfather, who was born in 1913, Paul Zatorski, decided there was not enough land in that area. He also farmed and purchased a homestead near MacKay, Alberta, which is about an hour and a half west of Edmonton. He started his family life there, where he had four children, with the eldest being Lillian, my mother, and three sons after that: Lloyd, Leonard and Stanley.

The life of any farmer was hard because clearing land was not an easy accomplishment, yet they knew life was going to be far better in Canada than it would have been if they stayed in Poland. One of the problems they had over the years in Poland was the amount of wars that were happening in Europe at the time. Possibly, if we look back in history, they might not have even been in Poland at the time because the borders kept changing so much. One might have been in Germany, Galicia or whatever other country at the time because the borders did change. One of the main factors to it not being the most desirable place to raise a family was knowing they could be in upheaval at any time.

I will get back to what I was saying, which is that my grandfather started farming as well. We now had a generation of farmers in the family. At the time, in the early part of the 1900s, I think 92% of Canadians were farmers. It is quite the exact opposite now, where the majority of people live in urban centres and the farming community represents only about 2% or 3% of the population. With mechanization, we know how many more a farmer can feed now with the amount of land they have compared to back then.

With homesteads, almost everybody lived on one quarter of land. As generations grew into the forties, fifties and sixties, people started to expand a lot more and could create a better life. They knew one quarter of land was not enough anymore. Tractors cost more than horses, and tractors could also do a lot more than horses could ever do, and that was one of the reasons farms expanded over the years.

I look at the benefit of the heritage of the Polish community and how much it has contributed to Canada. My family, or part of my family, was very much part of the building foundation of this great country. We all pretty much became part of Canada around the late 1800s or early 1900s when we started to expand the west. Immigrants came earlier in the years, but it was quite the thing for my family to come to this country in 1906.

I actually had the opportunity to visit Pier 21 in Halifax. I wanted to see whether I could find my family heritage and whether my family actually came through Pier 21, which was the other thing.

The first question I was asked was how many years ago it was. If it was not within a set number of years, we actually were not allowed to look up the records, as there had to have been, I think, 50 or 70 years that had passed before we were able to look up people's records. I was quite fortunate as it had been well over 100 years, and I was able to look at the records. I was told not to be too concerned if not all the names are correct, but to make sure the last name is right, make sure the parents' names are very close and, if they had children, make sure those names are right. I was actually able to find that, yes, they did come in April 1906.

The names Jacko and Mary were correct, although their sons' names were not quite right. The names varied a little bit, but still, I thought I had the right people because I do not think there were many Zatorskis coming into Canada at that time. To give members an idea of how much they have flourished, I have yet to find a Zatorski in Canada to whom I am not related. I cannot say the same about my last name, and I have had several people ask me whether I were related to so and so, but no, they were quite different families.

I thought it was quite interesting that we could look up the records, and they were not as close and precise as they could have been. There was only one page on what they had brought with them, some monetary information, and that was about it. However, when my other grandparents, Joseph and Doris Soroka, came in 1929, there were actually two pages. There was a lot more information, which was a little more appreciated because it gave a better sense of the things they had brought and what areas they came from. It was much more detailed, not near what is available now, but at least it gave a little bit of history of my family.

I think heritage and history are very important, and that is why we are celebrating this. It is to acknowledge Polish history month and what it would contribute. I also want to acknowledge that the members of the Canadian Polish Congress and its president, John Tomczak, do support this motion, which is great. I am not mentioning that they are here in the House, because I know that is not appropriate, so members do not have to worry about that. However, I am sorry if I erred in some way, and I do apologize for that.

As I said, it is very important to honour the heritage of our forefathers and recognize what they endured and how they helped build Canada. I just gave one small example of my family.

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.