MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Jacques Ramsay

Follow by RSS

Ramsay, a former family doctor, defends the firearms buyback and its compensation program, Bill C-22’s tools for police, and the suspended fuel excise tax, and argues for a common medical assistance in dying framework across provinces. He makes his case by weighing timing and design—“a measure is only effective when it is implemented at the right time”—and backs his answers with figures.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
81 / 100 over 44 statements
Signal 75 / 100
Relevance 78 / 100
Reasoning 83 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 89 / 100
Averaged over the 44 of 47 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Loses points less than most for A conclusion stated with no reason given for it.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Says again and again

Statements 47

Government Orders ·

Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“I want us to pass this bill now. It leaves out some issues, like allowing medically assisted dying for mental illness alone. We can look at those issues in a future bill once more Canadians are ready for them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that all parliamentarians support this bill in some way. As I said, Bill C-41 does close the door on some things, but we can always revisit those issues later in another bill. I think that we are better off waiting until we have more support from society at large rather than trying to force a bill down Canadians’ throats when they still have so many concerns. I think that we will have to take that step one day. I hope it will be sooner rather than later. That is my humble opinion.

In response to a question from Louis Villeneuve

“I support this bill because it lets people make advance requests for medical assistance in dying. More people are living longer and will suffer from dementia. It is respectful to let them decide ahead of time how much suffering they are willing to endure.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi, who takes a great interest in this issue. I would say that we are taking a very important step forward with Bill C‑41, particularly in authorizing advance requests. We know that demographic realities compel us to act. More and more people are living longer and, unfortunately, will be incapacitated and experience dementia. It is a matter of respect, I believe, to think about these people today, to plan ahead and to give them the opportunity to decide in advance the level of suffering they are willing to endure before receiving MAID.

“We need a basic national framework for assisted dying. This allows provinces to handle it their own way, but still makes sure a person's request is honoured if they move to another province. We can agree on this without stepping on provincial powers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned a common or basic framework. Within this common framework, I think that each province could choose to provide medical assistance in dying in a manner that reflects its own approach and particular circumstances. That said, I consider it important to ensure that someone who submits a request for medical assistance in Vancouver receives a response to their request after moving to Montreal, or vice versa. To me, that seems a simple matter of common sense. I am confident that, within Canada, we can agree on such a framework without encroaching on each other’s jurisdictions.

In response to a question from Luc Berthold

“I am a doctor, not a legal expert. I leave it to legal experts to make sure the federal and Quebec laws match. But we still need to figure out how to measure a person's suffering when they receive medically assisted dying. Quebec will need to fix its law or make its rules clearer on that.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 30 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I spoke as a doctor. I am not a legal expert, so I will let them be the ones to ensure that the two pieces of legislation are consistent. However, as I said, there are issues that will need to be resolved, such as the assessment of suffering. Since I do not have much time to respond, I will just focus on that. It is not clear how suffering is assessed at the time MAID is administered, so Quebec will have to make adjustments to its legislation or clarify its guidelines in that regard.

“I support this bill, but I want a committee to improve it. It lets people ask for medical assistance in dying in advance, before an illness like Alzheimer's takes away their ability to choose. This will give legal protection to doctors and nurses in Quebec, who already handle these requests. However, we need to make sure rules are consistent across all provinces. We also need to define who speaks for the patient, fix rules around waiting periods and suffering, and allow people to agree to organ donation in their advance requests.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 7 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines. I rise today to give voice to the people of La Prairie—Atateken, many of whom have spoken to me about this bill. I also do so as a physician who was closely involved with medical assistance in dying in my medical practice. This bill touches on one of the most intimate questions a society can ask itself: How do we wish to accompany people at the end of their lives, and above all, how do we respect their wishes when they are no longer able to express them? Through Bill C-41, the government is proposing to allow advance requests for MAID. A person diagnosed with a serious and incurable illness leading to incapacity, such as Alzheimer’s disease, could give their consent in advance, while they are still of sound mind, to receive this care at a later date. Let me start by saying that I welcome this step forward. For many Quebeckers, this has been a long-awaited development. Quebec did not wait, as the National Assembly of Quebec adopted an advance request system, and those affected can now submit such an application to the Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec. They do so with the help of their doctor or specialized nurse practitioner, and they themselves describe the symptoms of their illness that they would consider intolerable. This system exists, but it is currently on shaky ground. The Criminal Code does not yet permit advance requests. The Attorney General of Quebec has asked the director of criminal and penal prosecutions to issue a directive: It is not in the interests of justice to bring charges in these circumstances. Our doctors and nurses act in good faith, but without the legal certainty that only the Criminal Code can provide. Bill C-41 corrects this situation. That is its first and greatest merit. That said, supporting a bill does not mean giving up on improving it, quite the contrary. This is a serious matter and we have a duty to get it right. I would therefore like to share a few thoughts with my colleagues for our work in committee. First, I want to talk about consistency across the provinces. The bill establishes minimum federal requirements and then leaves it to each province to decide whether to enact legislation allowing advance requests. Health care falls within provincial jurisdiction, and Quebec is, quite rightly, keen to retain its own model. However, we must be clear-eyed about the risks involved. Alberta has already passed legislation prohibiting advance requests. The Minister of Justice himself has acknowledged that greater consistency across the country may eventually emerge, but that process could take months, or even years. Dignity With Dying Canada goes further. According to the organization, this approach effectively gives each province a veto over access to advance requests. If every province develops its own forms, rules and procedures, we risk creating a veritable Tower of Babel. What will happen if someone has signed a request in Candiac and then moves to Ottawa to be closer to family? That could very well be my situation. I therefore propose that the committee examine the possibility of establishing a common framework, namely a set of core elements that any province choosing to allow advance requests should include. This is not about imposing a single model, but about ensuring that individuals have a basic level of protection and clarity, regardless of where they live. There is also the role of trusted third parties. I talked about it a little earlier. In Quebec, an individual may designate one or two trusted third persons. These loved ones have a specific responsibility: to notify the care team when they believe that the signs set out in the advance request have in fact appeared or that the person is suffering intolerably. This is an essential part of the process. An advance request can sit in a registry for years. Without someone to bring it to the care team’s attention, it could easily be overlooked, yet the national requirements set out in Bill C‑41 make no mention of this role. In my view, it should form part of the common framework, and its responsibilities should be clearly defined. Indeed, it must be said that those responsibilities are not even clearly defined in Quebec’s legislation. Every trusted third person should know exactly what their responsibilities will be when the time comes to provide medical assistance in dying. We should also think about people who have no one, such as isolated seniors with no close family. The Quebec system states that, in the absence of a trusted third person, the health care team takes over. I respectfully submit that this is an avenue worth pursuing. Third, there is the 30-day rule. The bill rightly provides that a clear refusal, expressed through words, sounds or gestures, renders the request invalid, but it also provides that, in cases of doubt, the assistance cannot be administered and a minimum period of 30 days must then elapse. The Quebec legislation is just as firm on the principle: “Any refusal...must be respected and it is prohibited to disregard it in any manner.” It also recognizes a clinical reality. In a person with advanced dementia, resistance to care is often a symptom of the disease itself. That is why it leaves it to the professional’s judgment to determine whether it is a genuine refusal. I am concerned that an automatic, repeated, endless delay could prolong the suffering that the person initially wanted to avoid through their advance request. It could also expose health care professionals to pressure from loved ones who oppose MAID. I hope the committee will examine this provision carefully and consider how it aligns with the Quebec legislation. Fourth, and this is my main point, suffering is a condition for accessing end-of-life care. For a standard request, the Criminal Code recognizes physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to the person and that cannot be alleviated under conditions the person deems acceptable. For an advance request, Bill C-41 instead requires practitioners to determine that the suffering “cannot be relieved through reasonable means”. Consider the person writing their request. What they often fear most is not so much physical pain as the loss of self: no longer recognizing those they love, being entirely dependent on others. The committee will have to consider how much weight to give to what the person themselves defined as intolerable when they were, in fact, in full possession of their faculties. I dare say that this should carry as much weight as a third-party assessment, one fraught with pitfalls, in the case of a person with dementia. After all, if we wait long enough, it is possible that the person with dementia will no longer even be able to express their sadness, let alone their suffering. Lastly, and incidentally, there is one question we too often overlook: organ donation. In Quebec, a growing number of people who receive medical assistance in dying also choose to donate their organs. In 2022, close to 15% of Quebec organ donors had used medical assistance in dying. It is an act of tremendous generosity that gives meaning to a difficult moment, but the process relies on consent being provided by the individual themselves after a period of reflection. What happens in the case of someone who makes an advance request? Once they become incapacitated, they can no longer take these steps. That is why it is important to address the issue at the very time the advance request is being prepared and to confirm whether the individual would like to donate their organs when the time comes to receive medical assistance in dying. Behind each of the bill’s clauses are families and people. People in La Prairie, Saint-Constant and Kahnawake have all seen a relative slowly die, and have promised themselves to never put their loved ones through the same experience. Their request to us is simple: that their wishes be respected. Bill C‑41 moves us closer to this goal. We must work together in committee to ensure that it fully achieves it.

In response to a question from Marilène Gill

“This bill says a patient must be suffering intolerably when they receive medical assistance in dying, but it is not clear if mental suffering counts. Quebec's law allows a trusted person to speak for a family member about that suffering. I want to know the member's thoughts on this trusted person concept, which is not in this bill.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan very much. Earlier, I asked her colleague a question about the trusted third person, which is a feature of Quebec’s law, but I did not have time to elaborate. One of the things this bill requires is that, at the moment when MAID is provided, the patient’s suffering must be enduring and intolerable. It is not clear whether mental suffering would count. It does under Quebec’s law, because the trusted third person could say, for example, that their relative needs it and does not want to live with that suffering. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the trusted third person concept, which is not present in—

“We should not rush to offer medically assisted dying to people with a mental illness. Many doctors and citizens do not want that yet, but Parliament can always look at it again later. I also want to know if this bill fixes problems with Quebec's rule about trusted third parties.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, and I also thank our colleague, the member for Montcalm, for taking part in the committee’s work. My hon. colleague said that eligibility is closed “indefinitely”. I would like to remind him that a new bill can always be introduced later on. Nothing is ever closed indefinitely. He said that our party lacks political courage, but sometimes, ramming legislation down people’s throats is not the best way to move forward. Based on my conversations with some of the physicians who provide MAID, I can assure him that a lot of people, even in Quebec, would be upset if MAID was offered to people with a mental illness. That said, I want to ask my colleague his opinion of the trusted third person mentioned in Quebec’s legislation. We know there are problems with trusted third persons often being inadequately advised. Is there anything in our federal bill that might be appropriate?

Oral Questions ·

Public Safety

In response to a question from Marie-France Lalonde

“Our government has a new plan to keep Canada safe as the world changes. It will help our economy, improve our military and spy agencies, build partnerships with other countries, and protect Canadians from crime and threats.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Clarity 32 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Orléans. She has always been a strong voice for making Canada and the world a safer place. The world is changing rapidly, and our government is ensuring that Canada is prepared to meet evolving challenges at home and abroad. “The Plan for a Stronger Canada” sets out a comprehensive whole-of-government approach to strengthening our national security. It will strengthen our economy, build stronger international partnerships, modernize our military and intelligence capabilities, and protect Canadians from criminal and national security threats.

Adjournment Proceedings ·

Adjournment Proceedings

In response to a question from Alex Ruff

“Experts, not politicians, decided which firearms are assault-style weapons based on the huge damage they can cause. Stopping gun violence takes more than one program. Our plan also includes stronger borders, tougher penalties for smuggling guns, taking away licences in cases of domestic abuse, and funding to stop gang violence. We are keeping Canadians safe while treating law-abiding gun owners fairly.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we have left it to experts to determine which firearms are assault rifles. This is not a political matter. It is for experts to decide. Basically, there are firearms that can do massive amounts of damage, as we have seen in mass shootings recently. No single program in this initiative can tackle the challenge of gun violence alone. As a matter of fact, the government’s comprehensive plan to keep Canadians safe from guns also includes, and this is important to mention, strengthening our borders, tougher penalties for smuggling guns, red flag laws and the revocation of licences in cases of intimate partner violence. There is also the gun and gang violence action fund and the building safer communities fund. With these initiatives, the government is taking concrete steps to make Canada less vulnerable to firearm violence, while being fair to responsible and law-abiding firearms owners.

In response to a question from Alex Ruff

“Our gun buyback program is working, on time, and on budget. We banned these dangerous guns to keep Canadians safe. Owners who turn them in will get fair compensation. If anyone is having trouble shipping their guns, we have extended the deadline and can help them.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, to go straight to the matter, the answer to the question of the hon. member is, yes, they should get the fair compensation to which they are entitled. If they do not, please come to me. We will make sure they do. I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. He told us that some of his constituents had difficulty returning their firearms. He took this to heart, and I want to thank him for helping his constituents do the right thing. Today, I want to speak about our government’s commitment to strengthening gun control in Canada and our progress in delivering an efficient compensation program to affected firearms owners. In 2020, following the deadliest mass shooting in Canadian history in Portapique, Nova Scotia, where 22 plus one people died, the government took the decision that the significant risk certain firearms pose outweighed any justification for their continued availability within Canada and, hence, banned over 2,000 makes and models. These are firearms that are not appropriate for hunting or sport shooting and exceed safe civilian use. Additional assault-style firearms were banned in December 2024 and March 2025, totalling approximately 2,500 prohibited firearms. In all fairness, banning these firearms implied a fair compensation for those firearm owners, hence, the compensation program. Now nearing its completion, the government is continuing to successfully collect firearms for compensation. We are delivering this program on time and within the funding envelope approved by Parliament. Since January 2026, close to 100 assault-style firearms have been declared in the compensation program for individual owners and businesses. More than 40,000 individuals have been turning in their firearms to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, local police services or secure mobile collection units over the past month. In a small number of cases, for example, owners who live very far from an in-person collection location, the program has recently invited them to ship their firearms. While most owners have successfully shipped their firearms, we are indeed aware that others may have faced challenges. In those cases, shipping deadlines have been extended. At any rate, our call centre staff have been and are still available to help resolve any issues participants may face with shipping or any other concerns. For their reference, the number is 1-833-759-4551. We remain committed to supporting owners who declare their firearms so that they can fully participate and receive compensation. Individuals who have had difficulty shipping will be accommodated past the program deadline. The success of the program for individuals builds on the success of the business program. That program has been able to claim over 61,000 firearms. These businesses continue to ship their firearms and receive fair compensation in return. We are serious about removing assault-style firearms from our streets to limit the devastating effects of firearm violence.

Government Orders ·

Safe Social Media Act

In response to a question from Marilyn Gladu

“I support this bill. Online life is just as important as real life, so things that are illegal in real life, like bullying and sexual exploitation, must be stopped online too. These rules will change as technology changes.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just made a very important point. Bill C‑41 does what is being done elsewhere. It regulates things that are not allowed, such as bullying and sexual exploitation. Basically, we need to recognize that online life is just as important in this day and age. We are doing that by introducing regulations that will evolve as technology evolves.

In response to a question from Gabriel Ste-Marie

“I support this bill. Quebec is dealing with screens in schools and health, but the federal government needs to set rules for global online platforms. We should give these platforms a chance to fix the problems themselves, and step in with age checks only if they fail to act. Most people in Quebec want this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think the two approaches are complementary. I have been watching the work of the Quebec National Assembly. It has focused on the effects of screen use in school, how families can better support their children, and specific health and education issues. I believe that Bill C‑41 addresses problems created by global platforms. I also believe the federal government has a fundamental role to play in establishing appropriate standards while giving platforms an opportunity to adapt. If they do so, then there will be no need for age verification. If they do not, I think it is our duty to intervene. I think this approach is in line with what almost all Quebeckers want.

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“We can check users' ages by scanning facial features without collecting their personal information. Protecting people's rights must come first. We can make sure this bill respects our rights when we study it in committee.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I thank my colleague for asking it. I am a big believer in technological advances. The AgeStandard initiative that I mentioned earlier is suggesting that age verification be done by analyzing facial features, without seeking to identify the individual, or in other words, an automated age verification process that does not collect any personal information. That is just one example of what could be used. I think that members will have the opportunity in committee to examine charter compliance, which must always come first. I think it is possible to do that with Bill C-41 and the charter.

“I want the House to pass this bill to protect children online. Social media companies have failed to keep kids safe on their own. This bill sets a minimum age of 16 for social media accounts, forces platforms to quickly delete abusive images, regulates AI chatbots, and fines companies that break the rules. It does not monitor private messages or limit free speech. We need to pass it and study the details at committee.”
  • A repeated line

    “Content that induces a child to harm themselves.”

    Said 6 times by 6 members since October 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the safe social media act. This topic holds considerable interest for many people in my riding of La Prairie—Atateken. I sincerely thank everyone who shared their views with me. I want to start by addressing a reality that is quite familiar to families in my riding. In Candiac, Saint‑Constant, Kahnawake and other communities across the country, the first thing that many young people see on a screen in the morning and the last thing they see at night is an app. These services have real and undeniable benefits. They provide information, bring people closer together, and offer an outlet for creativity. However, they also expose our children to risks that we would never tolerate in other circumstances. The numbers are clear: One in four young people aged 12 to 17 say they have been cyber-bullied. Reports to police concerning online child sexual exploitation are increasing dramatically. In 2023‑24, the RCMP received over 100,000 reports in Canada alone in a single year. Young people harmed in this way are much more likely to suffer from mental health issues, including suicidal ideation. Fourteen years ago, Amanda Todd took her own life because she was a victim of sextortion and cyber-bullying. Since then, two bills addressing online harm have died on the Order Paper. Victims and their families tell us that they have waited too long, and they are right. For a time, we hoped that the companies would take the necessary steps to keep our youth safe, but Canadians’ trust has eroded. Their voluntary action has never kept pace with the scale, speed and severity of the harm caused. In addition to individuals’ predatory behaviour, there are also design flaws, algorithmic recommendations, autoplay and infinite scroll. These are engineering choices that amplify harmful content. Worse still, today, AI chatbots are forming unhealthy, sustained relationships with young people, sometimes during the most difficult times of their lives. Tumbler Ridge is one example. Bill C-34 is based on a simple principle: The people who design these services must be held accountable for the risks they create. The bill establishes two pieces of legislation: the digital safety act and the digital safety commission of Canada act. Allow me to outline their key provisions. First, there is a duty to protect children. All regulated services will be required to integrate safe design features and implement age restrictions. As for social media, the government has provided that children must be at least 16 years old to have an account. However, the commission can grant exceptions to platforms that demonstrate that they have implemented and maintained sufficient protections for children. In other words, we are not closing the door. We are setting a standard. Access to pornographic content must also be restricted using adequate age verification and age estimation measures. This responds to a call for action from our communities. In the spring, digital entrepreneurs and experts from Quebec, including some from my riding, launched an online initiative called AgeStandard, which calls for the enforcement of the 16-year-old age limit on social media. Thousands of people have signed the petition. Their message is simple: A check box has never protected a child. They are right. Second, there is a duty to remove two types of content that do not belong anywhere: child sex abuse material and intimate images shared without consent, including sexual deepfakes. Social media platforms will be required to make such content inaccessible within 24 hours of it being flagged or reported, through a notice and appeal process. For a victim, every hour counts. Third, there is a duty to act responsibly. Platforms will have to mitigate the risk of exposure to seven categories of harmful content, including content that induces a child to harm themselves, content used to bully a child, content that foments hatred, content that incites violence, and violent extremism content. They will have to provide simple tools for blocking, reporting and labelling synthetic content, and a readily available resource person. Fourth, the bill establishes rules governing AI chatbots. If I am not mistaken, this is a world first. As soon as a user expresses suicidal thoughts or the intention to self-harm or hurt others, the service must immediately interrupt its interaction with the user and direct the user toward crisis intervention services that permit the user to interact with a human being. The chatbot may not pose as a human being or a professional, nor use manipulative engagement techniques to maintain an emotional attachment that causes the user to withdraw socially. Fifth, the bill provides for greater transparency. Each regulated service must submit a digital safety plan containing information on the risks, the measures implemented and their effectiveness. Accredited researchers will be able to access the data. The days when platforms had to be taken at their word are over. Lastly, the digital safety commission of Canada will be created and equipped with real technical expertise to develop standards, conduct audits, receive public complaints and impose penalties. Penalties for violations could be up to 3% of gross global revenue or $10 million. Convictions on indictment could lead to fines of up to 5% or $20 million, whichever is greater. For companies of this size, this is what sets a recommendation apart from a requirement. Colleagues in this House, experts and citizens have raised serious concerns that deserve to be examined. First, there is a concern about freedom of expression. In my opinion, freedom of speech is not affected. For example, this bill does not apply to private messaging. It does not require platforms to proactively monitor everything that is being posted. It concerns these services’ design and risk management. That is a fundamental difference. We have also heard concerns about privacy and age verification. I share those concerns. Nobody here wants Canadians to have to hand over a piece of ID to watch a video. Where necessary, this verification should be done automatically. It will need to be properly regulated. This is something the committee will need to look at closely, particularly with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. I also want to acknowledge the sustained effort put in by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne, whose bill, Bill S-209, has passed in the Senate and is now before the House. It aims to restrict young people’s access to online pornography. Both bills have the same goal, and I hope the work done in committee will result in a consistent set of clear rules on age verification, rather than trying to impose two parallel systems on the same platforms. There is a way to do just that. Some have said that too many details are being left to the regulations. That is a valid criticism, but as we know, technology evolves faster than we legislate. That is why it makes sense to enshrine the principles, obligations and penalties in law and to entrust the technical details to an expert body that can adapt as needed. There will be an opportunity at the committee stage to clarify what needs to be in the legislation itself. Lastly, efforts are also under way elsewhere. The National Assembly of Quebec examined the effects of screen time on young people and focused on the role of schools and on support for families. Our bill addresses this issue by seeking to regulate global platforms. This is where the federal Parliament has a role to play. Platforms have a duty toward the children who use them, and that duty must be enshrined in law. I sincerely believe that the safety of our children is non-negotiable, as the minister said earlier. The survivors have issued a call to us: If this bill is intended to build a safer digital future, then let it be built together with them. I urge all my colleagues to heed this call.

Government Orders ·

First Nations Clean Water Act

“This bill includes $4.6 billion, which is Canada's largest investment ever for clean water for First Nations. I want the member to admit this money proves the government is serious about bringing clean water to First Nations.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to know the member for Winnipeg Centre’s thoughts. There is about $4.6 billion in funding associated with this legislation. That is a lot of money. In fact, it is the largest investment that Canada has ever made for clean water for first nations. Does that not say something? Can my colleague tell us what she thinks about this funding? Is that not a strong indication that this government wants to advance the cause of clean water for first nations?

“This bill lets First Nations, provinces, territories, and the federal government work together on shared water while respecting everyone's powers. Does the member agree that this teamwork is a good thing that will help the law last?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, when watersheds are shared, the legislation provides a framework for collaboration that allows first nations, provinces, territories and the federal government to work together while respecting existing jurisdictions. Does my hon. colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue see this approach as beneficial and likely to ensure that the law stands the test of time?

Oral Questions ·

Public Safety

In response to a question from Alex Ruff

“Most gun owners say this gun buyback program is working well. If the member knows of specific problems, he should tell us so we can fix them. We will make sure this program works.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the reports we have from most gun owners is that the procedure is going well. If the member has heard about any specific cases where it is not working, I would invite him to connect with me or with our ministry, and we will make sure it works. We will make every effort to make sure this program works. This is our promise.

In response to a question from Branden Leslie

“The RCMP is in charge of this matter in Manitoba, not the government. I trust them to do their job and decide what action to take.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the House that it is the RCMP that has operational jurisdiction for this matter and it is contracted by the Province of Manitoba. I have every confidence that it will be able to fulfill its duties in the correct way. It is up to the RCMP to decide what action should be taken.

Statements by Members ·

International Developmental Language Disorder Day

“Next Friday is International Developmental Language Disorder Day. This condition affects over seven percent of Canadians and makes it hard to learn and use language. People often misunderstand it, which hurts those who have it at school and at work. We are wearing yellow and purple ribbons today to support them.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I rise today to mark international developmental language disorder day, or DLDday, which is taking place next Friday. DLD was once known as dysphasia, and despite the fact that it affects 7.5% of the Canadian population, it remains misunderstood. It is characterized by persistent difficulties in acquiring and using spoken and written language in relation to sounds, grammar and vocabulary. It is also often associated with other comorbidities, such as attention deficit disorder and impaired fine motor skills. All too often, those affected are mistakenly regarded as incapable or insubordinate, which obviously has an impact on their self-esteem, education and work. That is why many of us in the House today are wearing the yellow and purple ribbon of Quebec’s DLD advocacy group, Regroupement TDL Québec.

Adjournment Proceedings ·

Adjournment Proceedings

In response to a question from Matt Strauss

“The health minister stopped funding Canada Health Infoway this year. We will not send them any more money until we know it will help Canadians. The Auditor General will review this work, and we will share the results with her.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, to answer my hon. colleague’s question, the Minister of Health has suspended payments to Canada Health Infoway for the current fiscal year. Since then, no funds have been disbursed to the organization, and we have made it clear that our investments will resume only once we are certain that the money will be spent in the best interests of Canadians. The Auditor General has indicated that she wishes to review the results of this work, and we look forward to sharing them with her as soon as they are available. This is essential to ensuring that Canadians can trust how their money is spent. That is what this government intends to do.