Mauril Bélanger

[Official Languages, May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages clearly indicated today that the Conservative government was taking a laissez-faire approach to official languages, for instance, letting the various departments take on major responsibilities without providing them with the necessary funding.

Why is the government abandoning its official languages responsibilities? Why such a blatant lack of leadership and reckless laissez-faire?

[Citizenship and Immigration, May 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that was not even the question. I am very concerned that our Canadian friends of Haitian origin will be bitterly disappointed at the Conservative government's answer.

Since the minister seems to be saying that his government will not consider sponsorship applications that do not fit within the existing definitions, does the government plan to refund the tens of thousands of dollars people have paid needlessly for sponsorship applications that will not even be considered?

[Citizenship and Immigration, May 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, four months ago yesterday, Haiti suffered a violent earthquake. In the days that followed, we called on the government to be flexible, like Quebec, and temporarily broaden the definition of family member. We also offered to support any legislation needed to make that happen.

Will the minister promise today to broaden the definition of family member so that all our fellow citizens of Haitian origin can help their relatives?

[Petitions, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Haitian earthquake happened four months ago today, and it is my pleasure to present a petition signed by Canadians from both sides of the river in the national capital region. They are asking the government to adopt a more flexible definition of family members. They want the government to create a special immigration measure allowing Canadian citizens and permanent residents to sponsor family members who were personally and directly affected by the earthquake, regardless of their age.

[Petitions, May 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by Canadians from both sides of the national capital region calling on the government to be more flexible in determining who can be included in the family class.

More specifically, they are asking the government to establish a special immigration measure enabling Canadian citizens or permanent residents to sponsor members of their families who have been personally and directly affected by the Haiti earthquake of January 12, 2010, no matter what their ages.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association respecting its bilateral visits to Gaborone, Botswana, and Lusaka, Zambia, from February 14 to February 19.

[Freedom of Expression by Elected Officials, April 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties in the House and I believe if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That all members of this House stand united in condemning any form of extremism that incites violence in Canadian society, and re-affirm the rights of elected officials to freely express their views without fear of personal intimidation.

[Menuhin International Competition, April 27th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, Kerson Leong, an Ottawa—Vanier musical prodigy, just won first prize in the prestigious Menuhin International Competition held every two years in Oslo, Norway, for violinist under the age of 22, and he is only 13.

While attending Ashbury college, Kerson studied at Tutti Muzic, a private school run by his mother.

Twice I was fortunate to have Kerson, his older brother, Stanley, and their mother perform a mini-concert at my swearing-in ceremony here on the Hill. Both times they were phenomenal and they held the crowd spellbound. I have also had the pleasure of attending other concerts and they keep getting better.

Now they are taking the music world by storm and prevailing. I want to congratulate Kerson and, indeed, his entire family for making us proud and demonstrating that perseverance and talent are a formidable combination anywhere in the world.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, according to the rules, I have 10 minutes to speak about a complex, controversial topic that has numerous moral, legal, economic, social, religious, ethical and other implications. It is impossible, in 10 minutes, to talk about this subject with the depth it deserves.

One of the reasons why this bill should be passed at this stage is that the question of euthanasia, assisted suicide, the end of life and the right to die with dignity is such a complex and delicate question that the Parliament of Canada, where the people send their representatives to discuss serious issues, need to look at it.

A second argument in favour of an affirmative vote is the need to clearly define the terminology. Very different terms are used in speaking about Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity).

Every one of the 200 to 300 letters I received referred to euthanasia. Almost all these citizens asked me to oppose it and I accepted. I am clearly, categorically and completely opposed to euthanasia.

Yet, we should have a clear understanding of euthanasia. In all end-of-life situations, euthanasia takes place when the person who makes the decision to end the life is not the person dying. No other person, whether they are a health professional or not, has the right to put an end to the life of another person. One of the most famous recent cases was that of Robert Latimer, who ended the life of his daughter Tracy for compassionate reasons. I do not doubt Mr. Latimer's intentions, but his decision was unacceptable and the courts dealt with it as such.

In our society, no person has the right to decide to put an end to the life of another person. I read and reread the bill introduced by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. As far as I can see, it does not deal with euthanasia, but with the right to die with dignity. Implicitly and explicitly, this means that this right, if it were established, would be the right of the person who decides to exercise it and of no other person. In addition, this person would have to be competent and coherent.

To illustrate the need for clarity in our vocabulary, which is the second reason for an affirmative vote, we should note that the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île herself used the term euthanasia, in an article published in Le Devoir on April 15, when citing the position of the Collège des médecins du Québec. The Canadian Medical Association Journal suggests eliminating the use of the word euthanasia and instead having doctors refer to end-of-life assistance. The different terms used can lead to confusion, which should be avoided.

Here in the House, we talk of dying with dignity. Others talk about assisted suicide or even euthanasia. Maybe we are talking about the same thing, hence the need to define the terms. Let us try to have an enlightened debate, not a debate that leads to confusion. We will not clarify anything by refusing to study it.

For me, euthanasia means that someone else makes the decision to put an end to my life and I do not. I am opposed to that and I will always be opposed. However, if I was suffering from a degenerative, terminal disease and if I still had my faculties, I might like to seek the help of professionals who, on a voluntary basis only, could help me to end my suffering in a dignified and planned way.

Is that not something that a number of us would like to choose? I can say that many of my fellow Canadians would.

I would not like to impose my views on others. If someone else in the same situation, suffering, that is, from a degenerative, terminal disease, wanted to prolong his life to the extent that our science allows, I would respect his choice. And I hope that mine would be respected under similar circumstances, that is, that my life would be ended with the help of professionals and that those professionals could not be accused of having broken the law. That is what this is about.

Let us recall the case of Sue Rodriguez, who suffered from a debilitating, terminal illness. She asked that a qualified doctor be permitted to end her life at a time of her choosing. In 1993, let us not forget, the Supreme Court was divided on the question. The Court dismissed Ms. Rodriguez's request five to four. The majority justices based their dismissal of the request on the sanctity of life. The justices who supported the request felt that the right to freely end one's life was paramount. We can see that the debate had already begun in 1993, but the Parliament of Canada continues to avoid it.

Our society already recognizes and respects the will of mentally competent people, under precise circumstances, such as not being kept alive by artificial means or resuscitated if they previously indicated, according to established criteria, that they do not wish to be kept alive.

This is something our institutions take into consideration when they handle end-of-life management, and proper procedures have been put in place. The current approach was not established without a lot of debate, discussion, listening and serious consideration. The same is true of the notion of dying with dignity. We need in-depth debate. We have to consider the legal, economic, social, moral and ethical aspects of the issue.

We should give people an opportunity to come to Parliament—or better yet, the government should go to the people—so that they can express their opinions, share their points of view and add information they deem relevant to the debate. In my opinion, if we shut down the debate without that kind of discussion, we will not be meeting people's expectations or fulfilling our responsibilities as parliamentarians.

Parliament is a place for talking, for discussing, for considering, for learning and then for deciding and legislating. Society is already debating the issue of dying with dignity. I just hope that Canada's Parliament will participate in the debate, will help to structure it, contribute to it and facilitate it so that together, we can make a decision about how to proceed. To date, no government has been willing to launch this important debate. Members have made a few attempts to do so. Will we succeed tomorrow at second reading? I hope so.

I hope so, because I think it is our duty to ensure that Canada's Parliament participates openly, fully and respectfully in debates on important issues such as the one raised in Bill C-384. I therefore urge my colleagues to send this bill to a parliamentary committee so that it can do its work.

[Petitions, April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by Canadian citizens residing mainly, but not exclusively, in eastern Ontario and western Quebec.

The signatories are asking the government to be more flexible in determining who can be included in the family class.

Specifically, they want the government to create a special immigration process to enable Canadian citizens and permanent residents to sponsor family members who were personally and directly affected by the January 12, 2010, earthquake in Haiti, regardless of their age.