Stéphane Lauzon

In response to a question from Louis Villeneuve

“I support this bill. It protects vulnerable people and lets them decide on medical assistance in dying while they are still able to, even if they later get dementia. It also helps families and doctors prepare to carry out that choice when the time comes.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. That is precisely what Bill C-41 aims to do: protect vulnerable individuals and uphold their right to make decisions while they are still capable of doing so, even if they may later be affected by Alzheimer’s disease or dementia. It also helps to raise awareness among family members and physicians. They must be prepared to make the decision when the time comes to provide MAID. That is precisely what Bill C-41 sets out today.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 37 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 42 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“The Bloc Québécois is contradicting itself. They say we are moving too fast, but they also say we are not moving fast enough for Quebec. We want to work with Quebec to get this bill right, so the 3,000 pending requests are respected.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc Québécois is talking out of both sides of his mouth. What we have heard in the Bloc Québécois’s speeches is that we want to move too fast, that we want to bulldoze our way through this. In reality, we want to get this right, but the Bloc members are also telling us that we are not moving fast enough to pass bills that uphold Quebec’s rights. They are contradicting themselves. We are advocating for collaboration. That means working with the Province of Quebec to ensure that the 3,000 pending requests are respected.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 37 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 0 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 →

In response to a question from Luc Berthold

“Quebec has set a good example on advance requests for medically assisted dying. I want the House to pass this bill with a strong majority. It sets a national framework that provinces and territories can adapt for themselves.”

“Mr. Speaker, Quebec has been a model, an example to follow, when it comes to advance requests for MAID. Evidently, the framework we have presented, which I hope will be passed by a strong majority in the House, is a national, general framework. The provinces and territories will need to adapt it as they see fit. We commend Quebec on the work it has done so far, and we are ready to work together to lay a solid foundation with all the provinces and territories.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“I want the House to pass this bill and send it to committee. It lets people diagnosed with diseases like dementia ask for medically assisted dying in advance, before they lose the ability to consent. Most Canadians support this change. It gives people control over their end-of-life care while letting provinces set the rules for how it is safely handled.”

“Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to thank my colleague from La Prairie—Atateken for his excellent speech and his commitment to this issue. Since arriving here, he has immersed himself in the issue of medical assistance in dying. Today, we are seeing positive results. Parliament established the Canadian framework for medical assistance in dying in 2016. I was here at the time. Since then, Canadians have been engaged in an ongoing, compassionate dialogue on this issue. It is something I have discussed around the kitchen table with my family. Since 2016, it has been a topic that comes up regularly. While this issue can divide families around the dinner table, it can also divide members of this House. It is not an easy issue. Nevertheless, it is one that deserves serious consideration. I am proud to support my government’s approach. Today, I will focus primarily on how we can recognize and place appropriate limits on certain actions related to decisions about medical assistance in dying. I recall that we recognized at the time that there were some very complex issues that would need to be examined further. That is exactly what Parliament did. One of those sensitive issues was the possibility of allowing MAID based on an advance request. The court ruling has brought the issue of MAID before us once again. As my colleague made clear at the end of his last response, there is more work to be done. We can start drafting the legislation and refine it over time. There is no unanimous consensus on mental illness at the moment. It is important to note that advance requests for MAID are not currently permitted under the Criminal Code, because a person must be capable of providing consent immediately prior to the administration of MAID. Quebec has served as a model for us. Contrary to what the Bloc Québécois sometimes says, specifically that we are using this bill as a bulldozer, we are actually working together to move the bill forward. The Bloc Québécois should be proud to tell us that Quebec is a model. It is a model for us, a model for Canada, a model for drafting Canada’s medical assistance in dying legislation. We recognize that people with dementia can live for many years with this disease and that, depending on how the disease progresses, they can continue to enjoy a good quality of life and participate in meaningful activities. For some people, it is especially important to maintain their autonomy when it comes to decisions about their future health care. The decision is made now. When someone is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s or dementia, they are fully aware of the decisions they are making. Today, thanks to technology, the disease can be detected more quickly. Patients can find out what lies ahead. They can understand how their condition will deteriorate and how fast it will happen. People are thinking about the care they wish to receive at the end of their lives. Decisions about the future are made now. This may include the option to choose medical assistance in dying, even in circumstances where the person would have lost the capacity to consent by the time they become eligible to receive MAID. That is the major change introduced by the bill. I believe that Bill C-41 will allow people diagnosed with a condition that will result in a loss of capacity to submit an advance request for MAID. The eligibility criteria and safeguards must be established in the Criminal Code. This has to be clear at the national level. As my colleague so aptly put it, this is an incredibly important step to take before referring the bill to committee. A great deal will happen in committee. Thousands of witnesses have given evidence since 2016, when the entire legislative framework was overhauled, and now the committee will hear more. It is important to recognize that the provinces and territories are responsible for delivering health care services. The bill will also require provinces and territories that choose to allow advance requests to enact legislation setting out how this would work in practice. My colleague was clear on this point. In his response to the Bloc Québécois, he made it clear that governments will have to adapt to the bill. We are establishing a national framework. Nothing in this world is perfect, but this bill provides an excellent foundation for adapting MAID legislation across the provinces and territories. This approach reflects the division of responsibilities and respect for jurisdictional boundaries. Responsibility is shared across Canada. The federal government establishes the criminal law framework, while the provinces and territories are responsible for the delivery of health care. In the case of requests for MAID, the federal legal framework proposes to create eligibility criteria and safeguards that practitioners must adhere to. The provincial and territorial laws would specify how MAID based on an advance request could be safely administered, by establishing the terms governing how requests are stored and accessed by health care professionals. In addition, these laws would have to establish specific rules governing the submission, modification and possible withdrawal of advance requests by individuals who change their mind. That aspect has been made clear; it was mentioned by the minister in his opening speech. I think he placed a lot of emphasis on the fact that people have the right to reconsider at any time. This approach is rooted in years of parliamentary studies and public dialogue on this issue. We have been talking about MAID for several years now. In its 2023 report, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying recommended that the Government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to allow for advance requests for MAID following a diagnosis of a serious and incurable medical condition leading to incapacity. Then came all the definitions, the testimony, the public consultations and the digital consultations. Thousands of consultations were held. From November 2024 to February 2025, the government launched a national conversation on advance requests, during which thousands of people from across the country made their voices heard through an online public survey, public opinion polls and virtual round table discussions. Nearly 46,000 Canadians completed the online survey, and 69% said they supported advance requests for people diagnosed with a serious and incurable condition resulting in a loss of decision-making capacity. More recent surveys show even greater support for advance requests. For example, a 2025 survey found that 84% of Canadians support the right of people in this situation to make an advance request. During the national conversation, participants pointed out the importance of being able to make decisions about their future health needs and maintaining control over their final moments. At the round tables, we heard testimony from people who had gone through such experiences and from family caregivers. They described the difficult choices that sometimes have to be made when a person might lose the ability to consent to MAID as their illness progresses. For those with conditions like dementia, this can create an impossible choice: receive MAID sooner than they would like, while they are still able to provide consent, or wait and risk losing that option. Although participants expressed strong support for advance requests in principle, they also emphasized the need to ensure that this is implemented safely. Health care professionals pointed out the challenges associated with assessing suffering when a person has lost their decision-making capacity. They also explained how difficult it is to determine eligibility for MAID when the conditions described in the advance request do not exactly match the person’s current situation. In closing, this is an extremely sensitive issue, and I am sure that the committee will do its job and come back to the House with a sound decision.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“This housing bill is great news. The other member is talking about the French language only to distract from how good this program is.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who is well aware that I am a staunch defender of the French language. Build Canada Homes is good news. My colleague would rather talk about the French language when we are debating Build Canada Homes. There is nothing but good news when it comes to Build Canada Homes. It is a very good program. My colleague is attacking the French language because there is nothing bad to say about Build Canada Homes.”

• Unsupported
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Reasoning 12 of 100

  This statement drew 4 conclusions, but gave no reasons for 3 of them.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Carol Anstey

“I cannot give an exact number of homes or a fixed timeline. We are working hard with local towns and builders, and our goal is to build as many homes as possible.”

“Mr. Speaker, if you did not get a specific answer earlier, I cannot provide one now, either. It is not a fixed timeline. I have explained the process we are following in Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation. We send documents out all over the place, reach out to people, meet with entrepreneurs, secure municipal land and work with the RCMs. Our goal is ambitious. You are asking for a specific number, but there is no crystal ball when it comes to such a great program. The answer is that we want to build as many homes as possible.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It creates a government corporation to fund and build affordable homes faster across Canada and create skilled jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my speaking time with the member for Guelph. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to talk about the Government of Canada’s Build Canada Homes act. Specifically, I will talk about why Build Canada Homes is important for supporting the Canadian economy and the federal government’s buy Canadian policy. Launched in 2025, Build Canada Homes is a special operating agency within Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. Working swiftly and efficiently, this new federal agency has already made significant progress in providing more affordable housing for Canadians, including families, women, single mothers and especially families in need. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will have the flexibility and operational autonomy to deliver on its mandate, all while maintaining a clear accountability framework to the government. That is why the Build Canada Homes act is landmark legislation. The Government of Canada needs to strengthen its capacity to address the housing crisis, improve housing supply and accelerate innovation in homebuilding. Too many Canadians are struggling to find a home they can afford. Housing costs are rising, supply is not keeping up with demand, and productivity in the construction sector is low. Traditional construction and funding approaches alone are not delivering the scale or speed Canadians need. Build Canada Homes will centralize functions that were previously spread across multiple departments, agencies and programs that limited the government’s ability to have maximum impact. It will act as a developer, a financier, a convenor and a catalyst for an even more productive homebuilding sector. Canadians need more homes, and the Build Canada Homes act will help make it possible to build more quickly, more efficiently and at the scale that is required. In practical terms, since the Build Canada Homes initiative was launched, my office back home in Argenteuil—La Petite‑Nation has made it a priority to inform local stakeholders and get them involved. We believe that, to address the housing crisis, we need to not only put in place ambitious programs, but also ensure that businesses, developers and municipalities are aware of the tools at their disposal. That is the mandate of all members from all parties. Our mandate is to promote Build Canada Homes in our workplaces, in our ridings. By working together, we can accomplish more in each one of our ridings. In Argenteuil—La Petite‑Nation, for example, we have undertaken a major outreach effort targeting the construction industry. We compiled a list of businesses in our area so that we can send them the information about Build Canada Homes. We even made a list of businesses that are located outside of our riding but that do work in our riding and we invited them to participate in the information webinar put on by the federal government. The goal of these efforts is to encourage local businesses to participate and take advantage of the opportunities that this new initiative has to offer. Sometimes the first step is meeting with municipal representatives. There are 41 municipalities in my riding, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, so it is important to raise awareness among RCM reeves, mayors and municipal councillors. When they get wind of a construction opportunity, we pass on the information. At the same time, we keep all of the municipalities informed about the program’s overall priorities. We see municipal governments as our indispensable partners in developing new residential projects. Keeping them informed in a timely manner about the opportunities that Build Canada Homes has to offer is imperative. Our message has always been clear. We want to ensure that projects carried out in our regions benefit our workers, businesses and communities. That is why we are also focused on using Canadian-sourced materials and modern, innovative construction methods, such as modular or prefabricated construction, to speed up housing starts while supporting our economy. Build Canada Homes investments are aimed at increasing the supply of affordable, community and non-market housing, while promoting shovel-ready projects that can make a lasting impact. Our role as MPs is to promote those opportunities, connect the right people and support local stakeholders in their efforts. We are fully committed to promoting the program. I encourage all my colleagues in the House to follow Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation’s lead by supporting promising initiatives and working with all partners in their regions. Every new housing project is an opportunity to meet the needs of families, workers, seniors and single-parent families. By providing our local partners with information, encouragement and guidance, we are taking concrete steps to help build more housing and strengthen our communities for years to come. The team Canada strong initiative will transform the skilled trades sector. It will create skilled jobs for workers, plumbers and electricians. This will help us become more prosperous and create jobs. It will attract more apprentices to the workforce. I come from the construction industry, specifically the trades. When government announcements are made at the right time, it helps attract students who are still in school and get them into apprenticeships. Our goal is to train the next generation of workers and create good jobs. This initiative will ensure that young Canadians are ready to build the housing and infrastructure we need. It will create new jobs, provide access to good jobs and strengthen Canada’s workforce of tomorrow. That is how, over time, we have developed trades that did not exist 20 or 25 years ago, like tiling, roofing and interior finishing. These are trades that involve vocational training and that are expected to continue to grow in the construction industry. The Government of Canada is taking decisive action now to transform our country and make it more resilient so that it can move from dependence to resilience. The goal is to make Canada one of the fastest-growing and most competitive economies in the world and to usher in a new era of economic security and prosperity for Canadians. I am proud to promote Build Canada Homes in Quebec because partners are getting on board. Organizations believe in it; the sector believes in it. Nothing is perfect, but at least we have an accountability mechanism that will enable us to track each individual project so we can deliver as many homes as possible, end the housing crisis and reduce rents. The Government of Canada is achieving this by leaning on solid foundations laid by strong Canadian industries. We are investing in our future and fostering economic growth through Build Canada Homes and the buy Canadian policy. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will be funded by the initial $13‑billion allocation announced in the 2025 budget. Build Homes Canada was designed to consolidate federal support for affordable housing in one place by coordinating with other government departments and agencies, including the Government of Quebec. It is a partnership. The Government of Quebec is proud to be working with us to build a stronger Canada and a stronger Quebec.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 5 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “Build Canada homes will have the flexibility and operational autonomy needed to fulfill its mandate.”

  Said 5 times by 5 members since June 5.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The Conservatives want to vote against this bill even though it helps Canadian and Quebec artists. They also want to cut CBC and Radio-Canada. This bill helps keep our own content here and does more for Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Obviously, it is easy for the Conservatives to target the bill and try to vote against something that helps our Quebec and Canadian artists. However, we must remember that it is also the Conservatives who want to abolish CBC/Radio-Canada and cancel the investments we are making in our Quebec and Canadian advertising. This bill enables us to bring content home and do more for Canadians and Quebeckers.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 19 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 →

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“Our online streaming law supports Canadian and Quebec culture. It takes money from digital platforms and gives it to our local artists and creators.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague and I share a Quebec culture and a Canadian culture, which the government greatly supports. Bill C‑11 does just that. That money will be reinvested in Quebec content. We will promote our artists. We will stand up for our creators. For the next generation, we will invest that money in Canadian and Quebec content. I am proud that we can reinvest what comes from digital content in our local and Quebec artists.”

In response to a question from Bernard Généreux

“Artists in my area want more money invested in Canadian and Quebec content. Charging fees on content brings in money we can reinvest to make more of our own content at home. This bill does that.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is asking an excellent question. I was just talking about Quebec content, but it is Canadian content that ensures that the money is reinvested in content. In my region, our artists are telling us that they want more investment in Canadian and Quebec content. That is exactly what the percentages levied on content are for. They ensure that we can reinvest them here at home to produce more Canadian content. This aligns perfectly with the bill.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support the law that makes online streaming services support Canadian content. People watch shows online now instead of on cable. Large foreign streaming companies make a lot of money in Canada, so they should help pay for Canadian and French-language creators, just like traditional broadcasters have always done.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the MP for Scarborough Southwest. I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the Online Streaming Act, the modernization of Canada’s broadcasting system and the importance of ensuring that the stories told by Canadian creators remain a centrepiece of the modern broadcasting landscape. At the core of this problem is a simple reality that we are all familiar with: The way Canadians consume content has changed at lightning speed. The Broadcasting Act was designed for a world of television, radio and cable channels and prime-time audiences. This world has not disappeared entirely, as shown by the millions of Canadians who gathered to watch the Montreal Canadiens during the playoffs. However, it is a thing of the past for most of the Canadians consuming content nowadays. Children no longer run off to get a snack during the commercial breaks, as we did when we were kids. They bring their phones with them and watch whatever they want, whenever they want, provided their parents let them. This change has had some huge benefits. Canadians can access content from around the world more easily than ever before. We can watch Korean dramas, Mexican heist dramas, British bake-offs and singing competitions from around the world. American movies, TV shows and music are also widely available in Canada, and Canadians continue to consume this content extensively every day. There is no denying this reality. This is not necessarily a problem in and of itself. Canadians value choice, and the Online Streaming Act does not take that choice away from them. The act ensures that, in this new content-rich environment, Canadian stories are also supported and showcased. It incorporates the key online streaming services that operate and generate revenue in Canada into a modernized accountability framework. Just as traditional broadcasters have long been expected to contribute to Canadian culture, so too must today’s broadcasters. Through the Online Streaming Act, the House modernized the Broadcasting Act to ensure that foreign streaming companies support our creators, our stories and Canadian music for generations to come. The act establishes a fair and simple regulatory framework under which comparable broadcasting services are subject to similar regulatory requirements. The government has made it clear that the Online Streaming Act and the CRTC’s implementation of regulatory measures are consistent with Canada’s trade obligations, including those under CUSMA. The Online Streaming Act was drafted with Canada’s international obligations and commitments in mind. I want to emphasize that the act is not intended to discriminate against non‑Canadian services. It applies to all undertakings that provide online broadcasting services to Canadians. It is not a matter of nationality, but rather of participating in the Canadian broadcasting system and profiting from it here at home. Far from being discriminatory, the act does exactly the opposite. It requires each company to contribute appropriately to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming, in proportion to its presence and importance in the system. It is a matter of fairness. If a business generates income in Canada, it is expected to contribute fairly and equitably. That is why it is misleading to claim that the act targets U.S. companies. In reality, it aims to create a fair, flexible framework for online streaming services operating in Canada that complies with Canada’s international commitments. Although it requires the CRTC to ensure that online streaming services contribute significantly to the broadcasting system, it does not put U.S. content streamers or creators at a disadvantage. In fact, Canadian streamers are still expected to spend a higher percentage of their revenues on Canadian content than foreign streamers. In the not-to-distant past, online streamers were not required to support Canadian music or stories while contributing to other major broadcasting objectives. Under the CRTC’s Canadian programming expenditure framework, Canadian broadcasting ownership groups are subject to a 25% Canadian programming expenditure requirement, while unaffiliated and non-Canadian online broadcasting ownership groups are subject to a 15% requirement, which includes the 5% base contribution. The framework applies to groups operating in Canada with annual Canadian broadcasting revenues of $25 million or more. This means that small businesses, such as local stations that are often the only sources of information in regional areas, newly launched television services, or specialized streaming television services targeting small audiences, will not be subject to this requirement. It is also important to remember that Canadian broadcasters have long been subject to significant spending and programming obligations and that their obligations to contribute to the system remain in place. Those that generate the most revenue, the major players that are increasingly capturing the public’s attention, will be expected to contribute more and will serve as major windows into Canadian and Quebec culture. Only the major players who can afford to do so are expected to make proportional contributions. The new regulations do not penalize streaming services for operating in Canada. Why would they? The reality is that foreign broadcasters have enriched the broadcasting landscape and provided opportunities for Canadian talent. It is a question of fairness. If a company benefits from its operations in the Canadian market, if it reaches Canadian audiences and if it earns significant revenue from Canadian subscribers and viewers, it is entirely reasonable that it should contribute to the sustainability of the system in which it operates. This is not a radical idea. For decades, Canada maintained an outdated broadcasting policy; it recognizes that culture is not simply a commodity like any other. Broadcasting helps shape the way people understand their country, their communities and one another. It ensures that Canadians can see and hear themselves reflected in the programming available to them. Now more than ever, we need to hear stories that come from here. We need to see ourselves on screen. Our government will never stop supporting Canadian artists and culture. It is high time to pass Bill C-11 and bring it into force as soon as possible. I want to talk about Quebec. It is getting harder and harder for French-language content to break into American channels. We do business with the giants of this world, but the giants of this world are centred on the English language. Bill C‑11 will ensure that we get a fair shake when it comes to our content and promoting the French language in Canadian content. For Quebeckers who want to showcase and promote francophone culture, I can attest that this bill is up to date and good for the Quebec community, the Canadian community and the community that wants to promote Canadian content and see it reflected in our young people, in our future and in young audiences currently consuming the major networks’ products. Bill C-11 is here to stay and here to make us work for our future. I look forward to answering questions.”