Michael Barrett

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“I support this bill because it adds safeguards to medically assisted dying. People have the legal right to make this choice, but we must protect vulnerable people. We need rules to make sure no one is pressured, that they fully understand their choice, and that they are of sound mind when making it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what I infer from the hon. member’s comments to be his respect and advocacy for the individual autonomy of every person. While I arrive at this debate informed by my beliefs, I would offer in reply that the opportunity we have with this bill is to provide safeguards for individuals who exercise that choice, which is legal in this country. We must make sure that there is no coercion, that it is always informed, that there is proper oversight, that when someone has made that choice, they have done so freely without interference and were of sound mind and judgment at the time, and that there are always safeguards in place to protect vulnerable people when they are in their most vulnerable moments.”

• 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

“Hospice and palliative care workers do vital, caring work. We need more resources to give people good and dignified care, especially in hospices and palliative care.”

“Mr. Speaker, we have among us in our hospices and among those who provide palliative care some of the most compassionate and most important people. I aspire to have the strength to care for people when they are at their worst in the way that these people do. We need to do more to make sure that we have the resources to provide dignified and sufficient care for people, and I think hospice and palliative care are two places to do that.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill going to committee so we can add stronger rules. I am glad the bill stops people from getting medical assistance in dying only for mental illness. People with mental illness need care instead. We must also protect our veterans. Some veterans asking for help were offered assisted dying instead of medical treatment. We need strong oversight and legal penalties for any government worker who offers assisted dying to a veteran asking for care.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this afternoon. Bill C-41 is a profound and deeply personal issue, I think, to everyone who will consider it, and everyone who has intervened on it today approaches it from different life experiences, different backgrounds and different beliefs. Today, I am approaching this from my perspective as a Roman Catholic. I am guided by my faith and my belief in the inherent dignity and value of human life from conception to natural death. The dignity that every person has is not diminished by suffering or by illness. Their dignity is not diminished by disability or by their dependence on others. It is through that understanding of dignity that I approach this, and my concern for the compassion and care of others. I recognize that the serious suffering, which is probably unimaginable to any of us, that leads some people to consider MAID is at the heart of why this issue was ever brought to the attention of legislators. Those who support MAID may do so out of compassion and respect for the individual autonomy of those who are suffering. Certainly, suffering is not something we should seek, celebrate or ignore. I think we have a responsibility to relieve suffering where we can, but suffering, again, does not diminish the dignity of a person who is experiencing it, and it does not make their life any less valuable. In this legislation, the provision of MAID for mental illness as the sole underlying medical condition has been excluded. With the difficulty in determining the irremediability of a psychological condition, that is a positive change. I am certainly supportive of that exclusion being included in this legislation. We need to make sure that there is access to treatment for people who are suffering with mental illness. We also need to make sure they have timely access to treatment. In recent years, we have heard about veterans who have approached Veterans Affairs Canada for care in response to injuries and illnesses related to their service to Canada. It is so difficult to imagine that the testimony concerning this that Canadians heard at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs described things that could have happened here. Veterans, in multiple cases, who were seeking that care were offered MAID instead of receiving treatment, a benefit they are entitled to by virtue of their service to Canada, which they offered with unlimited liability. That is a specific phrase, the “unlimited liability” that our veterans serve our country with. It means they can be put in harm’s way, leading to their death, in service to Canada. When they leave the service, what is our liability to them? Certainly, we owe them the care for conditions arising from their service. Has Canada done a great job in taking care of our veterans? No, it has not. Is that problem unique to any period of time? No, it is not, but it is incumbent on us now to do better, to get it right and to take care of our veterans, who served us with unlimited liability. The testimony we heard at committee was, of course, that some of these veterans were offered MAID, not care, but death. That is hard to imagine. We will hear in some of the speeches from some of my colleagues that there are not sufficient safeguards for Canadians, for people who are suffering, for people who are considering their condition in the future and considering an advance directive. There are not sufficient safeguards. What I want to raise for the government’s and the minister’s consideration is what protections there are for veterans approaching the government for care for those service-related injuries and illnesses. They should never be encouraged to end their lives. There is, I think, a departmental directive that veterans affairs employees are supposed to no longer offer medical assistance in dying to our veterans. I think that for an issue as grave as this, the opportunity that is afforded to us in crafting the legislation, because we have to get it right, is to make sure there is independent and sufficient oversight but also legal protections, which would bring legal consequences for anyone who was to offer MAID to a veteran seeking care for an illness or injury arising from their service. That is not the role of Veterans Affairs Canada. This is not an easy conversation for any of us to have. I think we all know someone who has spent their final days, weeks, months or, in some cases, years not just in a diminished capacity but suffering. It is a hard conversation to have. It is one that we are having, and I appreciate the need to be respectful of one another in engaging in this, because we are all coming at it from different perspectives. In finding the balance, should this law come to pass, to make sure there are sufficient safeguards for everyone, I have highlighted, in particular, some of the safeguards that could be considered for veterans. I encourage the promotion of the dignity of all people. I think something we can agree on, in a conversation where there will be disagreement, is that we need to look out for each other, especially the most vulnerable among us. It is with that view that I have offered this intervention, and I will take questions on that. Hopefully, we can get this right if and when it moves to committee.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“Members are calling each other names that are not proper parliamentary words. This causes disorder, and I want you to stop it.”

“Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I think you will find that ascribing labels to people in here that are neither proper nor recognized Parliamentary terms is going to continue to create disorder, and I encourage you to—”

“I want the member to explain why it is so important to have laws for Canada to launch its own spacecraft.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his condolences for the fallen and their families and the injured in Wainwright, a training area he and I know well from our time in the Canadian Armed Forces. It is hard to imagine that our men and women who are preparing to go into the battle space are now having to deal with the recovery and the loss of their brothers and sisters in arms. On the legislation, I am just wondering if he can quickly tell us why he thinks it is so important for us to get the legislative framework right when it deals with our national sovereign launch capability.”

“The government gave a $12-million security contract to an American company instead of a Canadian group that hires veterans. The bids were less than one percent apart. I want the government to explain how hiring veterans was considered in this decision.”

“Mr. Speaker, yesterday the veterans minister talked about creating employment opportunities for veterans. This week we learned the Liberal government awarded a $12-million security contract for the CRA to an American firm with ties to ICE instead of a Canadian not-for-profit that employs veterans. The difference between the two bids was less than 1%. The Liberals have been in here this week talking about the procurement process, but we are looking for an answer to a very simple question: What part of this decision included the employment of veterans?”

“The government gave a $12-million security contract to an American company instead of a Canadian group that hires veterans. The price difference was less than 1%. I want the government to explain why it did not hire Canadian veterans.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration has hurled insults at Canada’s military and has made unjustified threats against our country, but we have learned this week that the Liberal government has awarded a $12-million security contract for the CRA to an American firm that does business with Donald Trump’s ICE instead of to Canada’s largest employer of veterans, the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, a not-for-profit. The difference in price was less than 1%. I think we can all agree that employing Canadian veterans and hiring Canadian companies are important. The question for the Liberals is, why did they not do that in this case?”

“Almost 10,000 disability benefit applications from veterans are overdue. At the same time, the government is cutting 20% of the staff who review them. When will this backlog be down to zero?”

“Madam Speaker, nearly 10,000 veterans disability benefit applications are overdue and have passed the government’s own service delivery standard. Yesterday, I asked the veterans minister about the 20% cut to the staff who review those applications. It was in her own departmental plan. She said that it is not cutting but sunsetting the positions. She can call it what she likes. Veterans just want their disability benefit applications reviewed, and they want access to the benefits they earned through their service to our country, so on what date will the backlog of 10,000 applications be reduced to zero?”

“American tariffs are already hurting local businesses like Northern Cables. Now Canadian countertariffs will make things even more expensive for Canadian families. How much will our tariffs cost families, and what will the government do to bring those costs down?”

“Mr. Speaker, Northern Cables in Brockville sells about half its production in the United States, and it employs skilled Canadian workers. Trump’s unjustified 50% tariffs have already cost the company new U.S. work and put future Canadian investment at risk. If Canadian countertariffs are going to drive up costs for Canadian families, they would like to know by how much. Our question for the government is simple: How much are these countertariffs going to cost Canadian families, and what are the Liberals going to do to bring down costs for Canadians to make up for it?”