Randall Garrison

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, March 10th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy working with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, even though we rarely agree on anything.

My question involves the fact that she is now supporting a trade agreement that will take out the investor-state dispute resolution. That is something that she supported when the former Conservative government in a previous Parliament put investment protection into the Canada-China agreement.

Does the member still support the idea that a corporation like Huawei should be able to sue the Canadian government for losses, and to do so in a secret process, if they are denied the ability to participate in the 5G network? That is something the previous Conservative government put in place in 2014.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, March 10th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's remarks with interest. At the end of her remarks, she touched on provisions dealing with gender and equality for women. One of the problems with the way we have negotiated trade agreements has been the secrecy around those negotiations, and I certainly salute the Deputy Prime Minister and the member for Elmwood—Transcona for trying to fix that in the future.

My understanding is that many sources reported that the deal originally had much more extensive provisions dealing with gender equity, workplace harassment and other things that are very important to the equality of women in the workplace and that those disappeared from the final agreement, replaced by just some very general statements.

Can the member tell us if she has any information about what happened to those more extensive gender equity provisions and why they disappeared?

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, March 10th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Elmwood—Transcona on clearly laying out the NDP trade policies. I congratulate him on his very effective work as our trade spokesperson.

The member does not take enough credit for something I think we will regard as historic. When we look back on the changes that his work with the Deputy Prime Minister led to in the way we approach trade agreements, we are going to see this was a historic change, providing more transparency, more openness and a role for Parliament in having input into the trade agreements instead of a last-minute yes or no, as in this case.

I wonder if the hon. member could give us some idea of how these agreements he reached with the government will apply to the upcoming trade negotiations with other countries.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, March 10th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the agreement that the Conservatives will be supporting takes out the investor-state suing provisions in the current trade agreement with the United States. Since the Conservatives are supporting that, I would be interested in the hon. member's opinion on the agreement the Conservative government signed with China, the FIPA agreement. Can we be assured that if Huawei is denied participation in the 5G network, there will not be financial repercussions for the United States under that agreement, which the previous Conservative government negotiated?

[Business of Supply, February 28th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for Manicouagan's speech. She made a tremendously good argument for a better way of proceeding in this Parliament.

The member joined us here in 2015. I wonder whether she shares my view that the basic problem here is that the Liberal government and caucus have failed to understand what it means to work together with other people in a minority Parliament. The Liberals still seem to be acting as if they had a majority. They do not seem to recognize the results of the last election, and that necessity at a very basic level to work with others in this House.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, February 28th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, since 2015, New Democrats have been pressing the Liberal government to create a path to safety in Canada for those whose lives are at risk because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, or SOGI. So far, all we have is a pilot program for just 50 SOGI refugees, just 50, when Rainbow Refugee organizations in Canada receive more than 1,000 requests for urgent assistance each month.

Given the rising tide of violence against SOGI communities, will the government now recognize the grave threat to SOGI refugees and quickly implement a comprehensive and substantial program for those fleeing violence for who they love or who they are?

[Criminal Code, February 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about what I think is an unintended consequence of Bill C-14. It is the situation where people are forced to choose to go early because they are afraid of losing competence at the last minute, something the new bill addresses.

There are many examples of it across the country, I have one example that is very close to me. I have a friend who wanted to see family and relatives and spend some time doing last things because she had a very serious brain tumour. She chose to go earlier because she feared losing competence.

That is an unintended consequence of the current legislation. People should be able to make that choice and have an orderly and dignified end to their lives. Does the member not see that as an unintended consequence?

[Criminal Code, February 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech by the member for Lethbridge with great interest and I respect her very strong feelings on this issue. When she points out that the government is making changes that were not demanded by the courts, I would like to point out that there are many Canadians and Canadian families who are dealing with issues of intolerable suffering at the end of life who are asking for changes like Audrey's amendment, and they are asking for them right now.

As I mentioned earlier, because this debate is going on today, I have had someone I know quite well contact me to say they wish this bill would move quickly because it would assist them in making a choice in maintaining their control at the end of their life. They are facing intolerable suffering that cannot be alleviated.

While I agree with the member that we need more and better palliative care, we are dealing with the demand from individuals and families to make sure we avoid unnecessary suffering at the end of life.

[Criminal Code, February 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about something that happened just a few minutes ago. Someone I know quite well contacted me, someone who is not currently eligible for medical assistance in dying under the legislation and would probably qualify under the new provisions. This person is in intolerable pain and suffering and has reached out to many people, asking for help.

I believe the reason the government has decided to proceed with some of these changes is to meet that need and help us reduce unnecessary suffering at the end of life. This is not someone who is being pressured. This is someone whose condition is deteriorating quite rapidly and is, as I said, in enormous pain. I ask the member to think about that motivation here for us to reach out and help those people and those families who are faced with this right now, not months from now.

[Criminal Code, February 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the original medical assistance in dying legislation was about limiting the amount of unnecessary suffering when people are facing end-of-life issues, both for the individual and for the families.

One part of the legislation that has been brought forward has been referred to as “Audrey's amendment”, named after Audrey Parker, a woman in Nova Scotia, who felt forced to choose an earlier death than she would have liked and ended up missing a last Christmas with her family because she felt she might lose competence and not be able to give consent at the end.

The bill that has come forward provides that those who have been assessed and approved can give instruction to a doctor so that if they lose competence before their wishes are carried out, they can receive assistance and not have to make the ugly choice to go sooner than they would like. Does the member support that provision?