Julie Vignola

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the excellent question.

Last year, the Speech from the Throne mentioned that the government and the opposition parties had to work together. What is being proposed is what was asked. It is even more necessary now, during the pandemic, to protect our citizens and our public finances.

Moving amendments is one way of working together. If everyone agrees to make the amendment, we should do so. Let us show goodwill and work together. Members on this side of the House are prepared to do so. We are waiting for the other side to be ready to collaborate just as they say they are.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, dealing with a pandemic is not part of our normal routine.

The last pandemic, the Spanish flu, was over 100 years ago. Obviously, no one here today was alive at the time, not even the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, despite what some people may think. As much as we would have liked to draw lessons from that last major pandemic, it would have been difficult because the context and realities were so different back then.

Over the past few months, we have experienced huge disruptions in all areas of our lives, including the personal, social, economic, technological and other aspects. We came together and worked shoulder to shoulder. We needed to act quickly to help our fellow citizens. What I have heard in my discussions with representatives from the Regroupement des gens d'affaires de Beauport is that the programs were not perfect, but quick action was needed.

We have not won the battle yet: The virus is still here. Our fellow citizens still need help and support, and they need reassurance about the future. Do we have everything we need to face another wave or another pandemic? How can we ensure that we can meet our health care needs as well as those of the public without getting so far into debt that we cannot get out again? How can we hold our heads high and still be a country aware of its own needs and those of less fortunate countries?

My training is in high school history and geography. Knowing our history helps us learn about our successes and failures both as humans and as a society. Knowing and understanding our past, even our recent past, helps us prevent certain errors and build on our successes. To accomplish that, like historians, we need more than one source of information. Today, my aim is to emphasize the importance of planning, openness and collaboration.

Let me go back a bit. In October and November 2019, when many of us, including myself, were barely starting to understand our responsibilities and duties as members, we learned of a new disease raging in Wuhan, China. The disease was so contagious that the authorities quickly decided to lock down the city. In fact, one of the first issues I was entrusted with had to do with repatriation. I made sure that, once citizens were back home, they quarantined. I also made sure that they had access to a support network during their 14-day quarantine.

Not long after that, we learned that the Chinese authorities had built two new hospitals in record time. I began wondering about our level of preparedness. What did we learn from the SARS crisis in Toronto? What would we need? Did we have it? If we did not have it, or if we did not have enough of it, how would we get it? Could we produce it ourselves? How long would it take? What would it cost? Are our health care infrastructures prepared? Are our government infrastructures prepared? What is our plan to help the population deal with the lockdown?

Essentially, I wanted to know whether Canada had an emergency plan. Anyone who knows me knows that I am always asking 15,000 questions. Unfortunately, today, I cannot say that we had a plan, despite the fact that we lived through SARS and had a unique opportunity to see what was going on elsewhere in the world.

We rapidly established contact with Asian suppliers to obtain surgical and N95 masks, latex and nitrile gloves, and gowns. Ordinary folks stepped up. Distilleries like Stadaconé Distillery in Beauport—Limoilou and Vice & Vertu Distillery in Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures began using their facilities to produce sanitizer.

Others retooled their production lines to manufacture respirators. A sewing cooperative in Montreal managed to recruit sewing enthusiasts to churn out thousands of masks. Individuals like my friend Daniel Carré used their own 3D printers to print face shields. Not only did the parties in the House work side by side, but the entire population joined in.

In terms of procurement, the contracting process was shortened to be able to meet demand promptly. Despite all the goodwill, there were shortcomings. We must learn from these shortcomings to avoid repeating them. We must protect our constituents’ health and our public finances. After all, we must never forget that the money we spend comes from somewhere, namely from the taxes paid by the public.

Procurement is a complex process. It involves keeping a lot of balls in the air, because every government department and agency has needs that require contracts for goods and services to be negotiated with suppliers.

History has shown us that preferential treatment does happen in times of crisis and only gets found out once the crisis is over. We need to prevent this from happening. We need to maintain public trust in our institutions and in what we do.

What we need most, as I have said before, is personal protective equipment. I will not go through the whole list again. Every week, the members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates held conference calls with Public Services and Procurement Canada to track the procurement process and ask questions. In particular, they wanted to know why we were not prioritizing Quebec and Canadian suppliers, and they were told that it was because of a lack of resources.

How can we access these resources? What is the plan for reducing our dependence on China? Why did two planes come back empty? Why are we receiving so much non-compliant PPE? Can it not be tested over there instead of over here? How many companies have procurement contracts right now? Why did two million masks sit in a warehouse until they were five years out of date? Why is there no plan for purchasing and restocking supplies?

We have yet to get answers to some of these questions, even with a so-called “made in Canada” plan. It might be a good idea to have a “made in Canada” emergency plan. We have the innovation skills to pull it off.

To fight a virus, we need research on the virus's RNA, immune responses, treatments and vaccines. At the beginning of the pandemic, everyone agreed that we needed to ensure that industrialized countries did not monopolize access to the vaccine. Everyone agreed that if governments blindly invested public funds directly in private companies, it could result in a monopoly. Everyone agreed that the studies should be collaborative and should not lead to a new form of competition between countries. The boys' club culture among government leaders is getting tiresome. It used to be “my missile is bigger than yours”, and now it is “my country can produce a vaccine faster than yours”. Could we not all just work together for a change? That would be better.

Canada announced in April that it was going to invest in research for a homegrown vaccine. The day after this announcement, a company from British Columbia was given money. A committee was magically formed overnight, and no other company received money. Months went by before companies in Quebec and the other provinces got research grants to develop a vaccine. Meanwhile, contracts were being signed with foreign companies. Could we see those contracts?

Let us talk about rapid testing. The government invested in a company that was supposed to produce rapid tests. However, if I remember correctly, the tests cost $8,000 apiece and had too big a margin of error. What is happening with that contract? Is the company still doing research? We do not know. We need rapid tests, and we just found out that we have 100,000 available. That is great, but that number of tests would last Ontario and Quebec just five days, and then that is it.

Now I will move on to respirators. A Canadian consortium was created to manufacture innovative, lower-cost respirators with fewer parts. What is happening with that project? We do not know. However, we did find out that two guys set up a company and became multimillionaires 10 days later. Forget the American dream, this is the Canadian dream. How many of us could set up a company and become multimillionaires 10 days later? Not many.

I gave just a few examples, but I could go on for another 30 minutes. I am a teacher, so I am used to talking for an hour.

As I said, procurement is a big file, but it is also a hot topic. Procurement is where each and every procedural gap and error will stick out and every aspect of the process that needs to change will become obvious. This is the area where most scandals seem to come to light.

Quite frankly, my constituents and I have had quite enough of these scandals. We are sick of them. Like me, my constituents want us to act honestly and transparently. Not only are these values important to me, but they are what my constituents expect from me. I would hope that honesty and transparency are values that the government members and their constituents care about, too.

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, from the outset, since we arrived here almost a year ago, my colleagues and I have been making proposals.

The proposed committee will examine the situations that have occurred since the beginning of the pandemic. We will be able to learn valuable lessons and find some good solutions for all parliamentarians and parties from that.

I would like my colleague to talk about the lessons that the Conservatives would learn from this committee that we all want for the good of Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I have said it once and I will say it again: Yes, it is important to ensure that individuals make a free, informed decision and that they not be coerced. That is why the bill calls for a 90-day waiting period and support from a social worker.

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Nowhere in the bill does it say that someone who is suicidal can access MAID. On the contrary, the bill states that someone with a degenerative disability would have 90 days to reflect on their decision and would have the necessary support to ensure that they are not in a state of distress. The necessary safeguards are there to ensure that someone in a state of distress would get the help they need. Furthermore, the request may be denied if the assessment indicates that the problem lies elsewhere.

These are the same reasons for which mental health is not covered. We must start by providing support for mental health problems without giving people with mental illness access to MAID. A good assessment and good support are the safeguards in this bill.

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I am not a lawyer. However, in this case, a superior court handed down a ruling to address an unfair and unjust situation, where a right was taken away from people who were supposed to be treated equally. In my humble opinion, continuing the legal proceedings would only have added to the impression that these people are separate and different. They are full citizens, and they are entitled to be given our consideration and included in our reflections.

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, no one likes to talk about death. It reminds us that we are mortal, as are the people we love and the people we are emotionally attached to. We do not like to feel negative emotions. Our brain reacts negatively to these emotions by releasing hormones that make us panic.

Death is such a difficult subject that most people worry when a loved one starts talking about wills, last wishes or funeral plans. They worry about the person’s health, when that person is only trying to plan for the future. This may sound ghoulish, but life always ends in death. Our entire lives are planned, starting with our parents planning our education and then us planning our careers, moves, children, and so on. We can plan for death and funeral arrangements the same way, even if we do not have suicidal tendencies.

For there to be death, there has to have been life. We have a short time on this planet, so we need to act responsibly, not only for ourselves, but also for the generations to come. We are only borrowing this planet. The place where we live is temporary.

I listened to my colleagues’ arguments last week, and I also read a lot about medical assistance in dying. I even discussed it with my father. I love my father. I hope that he will be with us for a very long time. I am a daddy’s girl. Unfortunately, my father’s wishes are currently impossible. He told me that, if he were to be diagnosed with a degenerative disease and told what was going to happen, he would like to be able to tell his doctor, at a certain point in the progression of the disease, that he wanted medical assistance in dying and that he did not want to linger.

For now, that is impossible. It is something to think about.

Even if these discussions about our loved ones’ final moments are difficult, we need to have them. They are important. They ensure that we can respect the person’s wishes to the very end. It does not mean that the person will necessarily opt for medical assistance in dying. It means that we will know what the person really wants at the end. It can also prevent families from being torn apart.

One of the points raised by my colleagues was the fear expressed by several disability advocacy organizations that people with disabilities will be urged to get medical assistance in dying. I must admit that I, too, was concerned before I read the bill.

Once I read the bill, I saw that the request for medical assistance in dying must be made in writing by the person in question, and that it can be withdrawn at any time. When the substance is being administered, if the person gestures or speaks in a way that appears to be expressing a change of heart, everything stops there. That is the case not only for people with disabilities, but also for people whose death is foreseeable.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that people with disabilities have the same rights as people without disabilities. This implies that they have the right to life, and that they are entitled to receive the treatments appropriate to their condition. Why would they not also have the right to medical assistance in dying if they meet the criteria clearly indicated in the bill? Do people with disabilities not have the right to decide for themselves simply because they have a disability? I find that unacceptable. I reject the idea. People with disabilities are capable of making their own decisions. They are rational beings. This has nothing to do with making decisions for other people.

It has to do with allowing people the right to make their own decisions concerning their own death.

I would add that other safeguards have been put in place, namely the three-month wait time with support services. My colleagues talked about that. It is not always easy to get in touch with a doctor or social worker, for example. I used to live in the regions. My doctor was a general practitioner. However, I do not think anyone ever had a better doctor because, when the time came to pick up the phone and call a specialist, he was the first to do so. Nothing could stop him. I wish everyone had that kind of doctor.

All of this makes me think that people with disabilities are not at risk. They will decide for themselves, they will have the same rights and responsibilities as people who do not have disabilities and for whom death is foreseeable.

I read that people are concerned that doctors will suggest medical assistance in dying based simply on a person’s disability. The very idea is repulsive, since doctors would not encourage patients to die. They would first try to relieve their pain and make suggestions for how to live with their condition. Beyond that, according to the bill, it is not up to the doctor to decide, but the patient. Doctors assess the situation and the request. Their role is not to suggest but to inform. It is the patient’s role to request and suggest.

I also read that some people believe that opening up medical assistance in dying to people with disabilities might suggest that their lives are not worth living. I have read and re-read the bill, and nowhere does it say that the life of a person with a disability is not worth living. Did anyone here tell Stephen Hawking that his life was not worth living? Did anyone tell any of our Paralympic athletes that their life was not worth living?

I am getting worked up because I have a little cousin who suffers from severe cerebral palsy. She barely speaks, but when she wants something, she knows how to make herself clear. She will never be able to request medical assistance in dying. Given her personality, I am convinced that, even if she could speak, she would not request it, because she is a ray of sunshine, because she is the person in our family who always believes that everything is good, everything is right and, at the end of the day, we can get through whatever life throws at us. I love her. She makes us see the beauty of laughter and closeness.

Although her life is complicated, it is certainly worth living. Therefore, saying that the bill is suggesting that the lives of people with disabilities are not worth living is yet another despicable point that was made.

The bill’s preamble states that life and the dignity of seniors and people with disabilities must be respected and that suicide must be prevented. I agree. To deny people with disabilities who are capable of making the choice the right to decide whether to receive medical assistance in dying is to deny them their dignity. Are we prepared to do that?

That amounts to treating these people as if they were less important, as if they were incapable of making decisions because of their disability. The very idea is repulsive to me.

Not everyone with a disability will request medical assistance in dying, just as not everyone without a disability will request it. Medical assistance in dying is an exceptional measure. It is not the rule. It is a choice that is fundamentally personal and that should not in any way be imposed by another person.

Some called in particular for the withdrawal of the 10-day wait period for people whose death is foreseeable.

Once again, I have very personal reasons for supporting that withdrawal.

I had an aunt who was quite the character. She spent five years fighting cancer and receiving treatments, some of them experimental. At some point, she could no longer stand it, and asked for medical assistance in dying. Because of the 10-day wait period, she died the day before she was to receive the drug to help her die—

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech, which was very personal and very moving. I just want to pick up on the idea of the foreseeability of death.

Alzheimer's follows a certain progression. My colleague's grandmother went through that progression, as have some other people I know. People can experience different forms of dementia with aging, and some are more difficult than others.

With that in mind, would it be good to include the possibility of advance requests for medical assistance in dying in Bill C-7, along with very specific criteria?

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, this bill is one more step toward more equitable situation-dependent access to medical assistance in dying. This weekend, I had a conversation with my father. I believe there is an issue here with respect to foreseeability.

Take, for example, a person diagnosed with a very serious terminal illness who may nevertheless live for months or years. Can that person ask their doctor now to administer medical assistance in dying once the disease has progressed to a particular stage, even though that person may be incapable of requesting MAID once that time comes?

Will that be possible?

[Public Services and Procurement, October 7th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, that brings to mind a Dalida song, but I will not sing it. I will spare your ears.

For the second time in recent weeks, because of its poor planning and childish insistence on excluding and snubbing the Davie shipyard, the government has bought a used ship from another country instead of investing here at home. The government chose to buy an icebreaker that will last 10 or 15 years at most, instead of buying a new one made here that would have cost about the same.

When will the government make choices that support our economy and invest in our people and our businesses?