Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

“My party suggested a change to fix a mistake in the bill and improve legal support. I want to know why the government voted against it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the following question. The Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment that would correct a mistake and improve legal support. I would like to know why the government members voted against that amendment when the rationale behind our proposal was sound and justified.”

“I support this bill to protect victims, even if it is not perfect. The Conservatives kept trying to delay our work on it in committee. I want to know what my colleague thinks of their actions.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know my colleague’s thoughts about the study in committee of Bill C-16. The Conservatives made a lot of deliberate attempts to obstruct the work. While purporting to bring amendments beyond the scope of the bill, our colleagues engaged in endless filibustering. Considering that we made some progress and that we support the bill, even though it may not be perfect, what does my colleague think of the Conservatives’ behaviour?”

“The government tells us to buy Canadian goods, but its trade deals let it buy goods made in other countries. I want clear rules. I expect officials to give straight answers when they meet with our committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, earlier I dared to speak my mind loud and clear, and I will say it again: One day the government will have to get its house in order and become experts on the “Buy Canadian” policy, among other things. I digress, but it will soon be clear why, as that is my question for my colleague. How is it that government investments have a direct impact when we have free trade agreements, and how is it that the government is saying to buy Canadian when the goods will be manufactured abroad, in Europe, for example? This is somehow allowed under these agreements. Can we have a clear framework? The deputy ministers will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, and we expect them to be clear, straightforward and precise.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The construction industry is in serious trouble. I want to know if the member agrees this economic bill should have included wage subsidies and help for seasonal businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. We are talking about consistency in government planning. I serve on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The Liberals are talking about Build Canada Homes, and they want to build more homes. Our party has made concrete proposals and, right now, the industry’s survival is in serious jeopardy. Does my colleague agree that it would have been a good idea to include the wage subsidy in the economic statement, or even to fix the spring gap for businesses?”

In response to a question from Dave Epp

“The Liberals pretend to listen, but they shut down debate and ignore what witnesses say. I want them to listen to our helpful ideas instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals give the impression that they are listening, while silently thinking to themselves that they have a trick up their sleeve. They even said that we were traumatizing the people who came to give evidence all over again. I have heard that so many times. Then, when they realize that this sort of incident is not an isolated one, they have to keep it under wraps. What do they do? As they now have considerable powers, they cut short the proceedings, move on quickly, avoid discussion and turn a blind eye to what they have seen and heard. I have hope. I hope they reverse course, because it is true that the Bloc Québécois and the official opposition have constructive and compassionate proposals.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 35 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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government talks about spending money to make Canada strong, but it cut the budget for veterans by 15 percent. The government does not want to help veterans.”

“Mr. Speaker, everywhere we turn, we hear about investments or about “building Canada strong”, whether during elections or government announcements, while the veterans affairs budget has been cut by 15%. Do not try to tell me that the government sees them, hears them, believes them. The government definitely does not want to help veterans.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We need to protect victims of sexual violence in the military and move these cases into the civilian justice system. The government is rushing this bill and shutting down debate. Worse, the Liberals added an amendment that lets the minister give orders about specific prosecutions. That goes against the whole point of fixing the system.”

“Mr. Speaker, not long ago, on October 8, I spoke here in the House about Bill C‑11. My background in social psychology means that I have a specific perspective when it comes to victims, actions and their impact. In particular, I want to commend my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton because he and his colleagues had an opportunity to meet with victims, which allowed them to see that the recommendations in the Arbour report needed and still need to be implemented. I thank him for that on behalf of all our military personnel, but also on behalf of veterans, many of whom are victims of wrongdoing and criminal acts. I would also like to share the story of a female veteran. I will not mention her name, but I want to commend her resilience. This veteran was the victim of multiple rapes while she was in the Canadian Armed Forces. Just the sight of a uniform or a medal triggers her. When I say it triggers her, I mean she exhibits disorganized behaviour. It was clear that it was the sight of male authority that triggered an indescribable feeling in her. We saw it. I was there. Five minutes later, she managed to put it into words and explain what happened. As she told us, she has been living with this ever since that day, even after undergoing therapy. She had to repeat her story because there were so many changes. She met with an administrative officer, a caseworker, and another caseworker. She kept having to repeat her story. She knows full well that she will have to live with this for the rest of her life. I commend her courage. I can speak to this from my perspective as a social psychologist in the House today. This veteran, this woman, has to bear her suffering day after day and has to rebuild her life, knowing that there is a system in place to protect her. That is what we are talking about. How many years has it been? It has been over 10 years. What just happened? I am vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. We just completed our most recent report on the unacceptably high rate of suicide among veterans, which was tabled last week. Right now, we are looking into Lifemark, the rehabilitation program for our veterans, to see how it is working. This program is due to be re-evaluated shortly because the contract is renewed every six years. Some veterans have received good services, but there are a lot of problems with the program and that is what I am concerned about. The role of the justice system is to take what is happening in the Canadian Armed Forces and deal with it in the civilian system. That is what it needs to do in general. The committee looked into this and made some recommendations. I even heard two of my committee colleagues say that some of the votes had been unanimous. I feel as though we are in a bad movie. I was obviously not a member of Parliament from 2015 to 2019, but I get the impression that we are reliving a situation where the public is unaware that parliamentarians are being hit with one time allocation motion after another because the government is scared that we will bring up more scandals. We saw it earlier with Cúram. I have also seen it on the other committees I serve on. The government’s approach is to be secretive and forget about transparency. The government now has seven members on committees, giving it a complete majority, but it had assured us that this would not prevent it from working collaboratively. Seven days later, it is clear that that is not going to happen, which is appalling. Normally, I struggle to get all my tasks done in a day, but for the past week, committee meetings have lasted only 20 minutes or have been cancelled. When there is an event, we do not resume the meeting later. Some votes will be held tomorrow, and I am convinced that the majority will decide to cancel the meeting, since there will be only one hour left. Is that democracy? Victims are speaking out loud and clear, and it is not just individuals who are speaking out. Factual, concrete reports and situations also exist. What are the Liberals afraid of? I am really trying to contain myself right now. I want to talk about an amendment the Liberals brought forward. It might put some people to sleep, but it is important. It states: That Bill C-11, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 10 with the following: 17 (1) Subsection 165.17(3) of the Act is replaced by the following: (3) The Minister may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular prosecution. ... The last point I read is the part that folks really need to pay attention to. Let me explain what that means. The Liberals are changing something that was not even amended by the committee and that was not even discussed. Seriously, that is what is happening. Worse still, they are even proposing to give the minister the power to issue instructions regarding a particular prosecution. I do not understand the logic. I really need an explanation, and people need to talk to one another. In our democracy, we must negotiate and vote, even if the government has a majority. I do not have much speaking time left, so I will conclude my speech. The bill has been drafted and introduced with the express aim of putting an end to a system where people protect one another, where complaints are swept under the carpet, where victims do not feel heard, believed or respected. Is that what the government has heard from the victims? Has the government really listened to the victims? Has it read the reports by Louise Arbour and Morris Fish? Once these questions have been answered, I can say that military culture will have to adapt to the 21st century. Military culture has to recognize that women are part of the forces. Yes, the military can accept them, but it has to adapt. It has to realize that women can be victimized. That means we have to avoid creating a justice system that tells them straight off, or at least, that gives them the impression, that the die is cast and the system is rigged. I am thinking of all the female veterans I have met in my role as critic for veterans affairs. I see them. I hear them. I believe them.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Finance.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since May 4.

  Every time it was said →

“I want us to be able to talk openly about medical assistance in dying. Death is part of life, and families facing severe illness need to be able to discuss all their options.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved by the topic of our discussion. Allow me to explain why. I will start by asking those present and those watching at home to raise their hand if they have cared for someone at the end of their life who sought medical assistance in dying. We are not alone. We can ask people who have lived through the experience and people who are as afraid of this word as they are of the name “Voldemort”. Some people are afraid of discussing death, but death is part of life. This evening, we are talking about a change to the Criminal Code and a serious offence because it involves talking about death. That is exactly the issue. I would like to look back over Quebec’s experience. The Parti Québécois opened the debate on medical assistance in dying back in 2012, as my colleagues will remember. Not only was it a human-centred process, it involved a highly collegial approach to human dignity. I want to commend Véronique Hivon for setting partisanship aside. Today, that approach is paying off. In 2014, three years before my father passed away, the minister of health and social services, Gaétan Barrette, was spearheading this file with Ms. Hivon. All parties in the National Assembly reached an agreement, because they showed a willingness to understand. No one can understand what the individual is going through. Even I cannot understand, and I lived this experience for 20 years. Quebec is not alone. MAID is also available in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Colombia, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Portugal and several of the U.S. states, to name just a few. Some of those places have had it for decades. I would like to share my own story. It will make it clear that our issue is not with proposing a change to the Criminal Code. In 1997, I was very, very young. I still am, but that will not last forever. In 1997, we received devastating news. My father was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Those who knew Mauril Bélanger, who was a member of the House of Commons, know that it can progress very quickly. In my case, in our family’s case, it lasted 20 years. Over the course of 20 years, my father gradually lost his ability to move and take care of himself, and he had to rely on others. I had many discussions with my father. We never had an inclination to talk about the reality of what happens to all of us, that is, that we are born, we live and then we die. When the time came, when his physical and psychological suffering became unbearable, it made perfect sense to talk about it, but it was still extremely difficult. Here is what I learned. I could not imagine losing my father, who was of sound mind but was suffering. He was the one who told me that we needed to talk about it and learn what options were available. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this is a very sensitive subject for me, and I can hear people having conversations. If they want to discuss medical assistance in dying, we can talk about it later outside the House—”

“I do not support this bill. It makes it a crime for workers to bring up end-of-life care options with suffering patients. That makes no sense.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s speech. The intent of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence for certain people, in an end-of-life situation, to initiate a discussion about all the options available to a person who is suffering. This is based on discussions. Instead of the offence being based on an employee’s behaviour, something else should be done. There are people everywhere, maybe even here, who would not be beyond reproach, yet this bill would amend the Criminal Code to make that an offence. It makes no sense.”

“I oppose this bill. Job training already works well in the provinces, and the federal government should not interfere.”

“Mr. Speaker, once again, what movie is this? I was there, back in 1997, in the era of the labour market agreement, occupational training and the creation of the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail. It is no mystery what is going on here in Ottawa. Businesses are struggling to survive because of the relentlessly rising tariffs. We were told to expect a big surprise after a year. Why is the government is still trying to interfere in areas that are functioning well in the provinces? Why is it proposing this bill? Does the government not have enough work or what?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 26 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 →