Debates of May 18th, 2016

Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their place so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since our Parliament was founded in 1867, based on the Westminster system, there has traditionally been a free vote and debate on matters of moral conscience, especially with respect to end of life.

Today, for the first time in the history of parliamentary tradition, this government is threatening to not only take away the free vote on its side, but also to curtail free and open debate on such matters of conscience.

This is the first time in the history of this Parliament that the ancient convention of free and open debate on matters of moral conscience, as they relate to end of life ethical matters, is being curtailed. In 1968, the omnibus legislation that dealt with abortion and other end of life matters was open and unlimited. In 1976, the government bill on capital punishment was open and unlimited. In 1988 and 1989, the various bills dealing with abortion were open and unlimited.

That has been the ancient practice of this place and the motion just put by the government House leader is an unprecedented violation on the right, the prerogative, the responsibility of members to speak their conscience, to reflect the sentiment of their constituents on such fundamental matters of moral conscience.

What gives the government the sense that it has the right, for the first time in the history of this place, to violate that ancient convention?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that this is, in fact, a matter of the utmost importance.

We are debating a bill on medical assistance in dying. It is something on which every member of the House has a responsibility to provide leadership. We have been given the opportunity to represent the people of Canada in the House and we are expected to provide legislation.

I want to remind my colleague opposite of the unique nature of the circumstances in which we find ourselves on this day. The bill has been introduced because of a specific requirement of the government to respond to a decision of the Supreme Court.

I believe members of the House are familiar with the circumstances that have led us to this situation. We are now facing an important deadline. It is a deadline that our constituents expect us to reach with success and with appropriate legislation in place.

I want to remind members that the Supreme Court has provided Parliament with a deadline of June 6, and before that date, we are expected, all of us, to work together to put in place a complex regulatory framework around medical assistance in dying. We have a responsibility to do that well. We have a responsibility to do that in a thoughtful way.

There is a tremendous amount that is at risk for Canadians if we are unable to successfully reach that deadline and for that reason, we believe it is very important that we take the appropriate steps to reach the deadline.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that I must rise to debate time allocation on medical assistance in dying, Bill C-14. I voted for this bill at second reading and I believe the record will show I worked collaboratively with colleagues on the Conservative and Liberal sides of the House to improve the bill.

The elephant in the room is that the central feature of this bill, who is eligible for medical assistance in dying, is patently unconstitutional. It limits who is eligible to a narrower class of suffering people than the class that won a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter.

Yesterday, the Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously said that the Supreme Court decision cannot be limited to terminally ill people or people who are at the end of life. Virtually all credible constitutional experts agree this is unconstitutional.

For the Liberal Party, that claims it is the party of the charter, I find this so perplexing. It does not comply with the Carter case and it does not comply with the charter. The government is threatening us with untrue stories of legislative chaos if we do not pass its version of the bill.

In the name of all patients who are suffering with enduring pain but are not at end of life, who are watching the government take away their victory in the Supreme Court, how can the government justify ramming through a bill on such a sensitive issue? Why can the government not let us work together to get it right for all Canadians?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. It is very important that we get legislation in place, that we ensure, for the sake of people who seek medical assistance in dying, the bill is passed before the deadline.

My hon. colleague knows the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The Supreme Court has made it very clear to this House that there is no question that Canadians must have access to medical assistance in dying. We respect that decision of the court. We have put a tremendous amount of thought, effort, and consultation in place in order to reach this legislative bill which we have before us now.

I want my colleague to understand the very serious implications that patients in Canada will face if the bill is not in place.

My colleague opposite may be aware that I am a physician myself. I have a number of colleagues who are physicians. I have worked closely with health care providers.

I can tell all the members opposite with certainty that if there is not a legislative framework in place that provides protection to health care providers when that June 6 deadline is passed, there will be people in this country, who would otherwise be eligible to have medical assistance in dying, to give them the opportunity for a dignified and peaceful death, who will not be allowed because the health care practitioners will not have the support.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, National Defence; and the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, Health.

We will have to add one minute to the comments.

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today as a member of Parliament who takes this job and this decision for Bill C-14 extremely seriously.

I ask both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice, recognizing that we have had time allocations, because this is such an important bill to so many Canadians, why could they not voice their opinions when we were debating Bill C-6 and Bill C-11, so that members on this side of the House, including members from their own side, could debate something that is so sensitive?

I, myself, hosted town halls, took letters out to constituents, and spoke to a variety of different physicians and stakeholders throughout this country. Our voices, I feel, are not being heard, regardless of whether we are for or against the bill.

Similar to our member down the aisle, I, too, voted for this to go to committee. I am proud of that because I believe we need to have this open discussion. However, the opportunity for this open discussion has been closed in our faces and I find that extremely frustrating, especially when I am trying to honour my constituents' wants and needs.

Why have the members on the other side not stepped forward to the fact that Bill C-14 is important to Canadians. They should have fought for Canadians when discussing the bill.

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague opposite that this is indeed a very important matter. I want to congratulate her for hosting town halls. I want to congratulate all the members in this House for the amount of consultation that has taken place.

I want to remind members of this House about how much debate has already taken place. Despite our serious time constraints, we have undertaken 23.5 hours of debate in this House on this bill. Some 93 members of Parliament have spoken on this bill. A number of members of Parliament have spoken twice: the member for Montcalm, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, and the member for Kitchener—Conestoga. Both non-recognized parties have participated in the debate. I have had conversations with members of all sides of this House with respect to the debate. I have been available, as has my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to address members' questions.

Now, what is before us and what Canadians expect of us is for us to move forward with the bill, to ensure that medical assistance in dying is available to Canadians who require it and, at the same time, to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to protect vulnerable people.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister made reference to comments made at second reading stage. She also spoke about the importance of listening to physicians.

Quebec has been leading the way on this issue, so I think that the government should give great credence to the Collège des médecins du Québec. With respect to the legal void that the minister is invoking today as a reason to rush the debate, Dr. Yves Robert, the secretary of the Collège des médecins du Québec, said:

This is an artificial deadline. It is not true to say that there would be a legal void. The conditions imposed by the Supreme Court would serve as a legal framework if there was no federal law. [The Supreme Court] struck down the sections of the Criminal Code prohibiting a physician from assisting a grievously ill patient in dying.

This will still be true on June 7. Why is the government in such a rush to prevent parliamentarians from speaking to such an important issue?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for her comments and questions. She is right that we had taken great inspiration from the province of Quebec. It spent a number of years, as she is well aware, debating the details of what legislation would look like in order to put legislation in place for medical assistance in dying. It is a luxury that we have not had as we put this legislation in place.

She also references the opinions of doctors, and I recognize myself that the opinions of doctors are varied. However, I want to point out to her that there is an organization in the country that advocates on behalf of excellent medical care and works with doctors.

The Canadian Medical Association represents 83,000 doctors across the country. It worked hard on this issue. It did two national surveys of thousands of physicians across the country and invested a tremendous amount of time and money. It made it very clear that evidence showed that even though 29% of physicians had expressed a willingness to participate in medical assistance in dying in cases of terminal illness, they believed if there was not a piece of legislation in place on June 6, physicians would be very unlikely to participate, and it would be a serious problem around access.

That is something for which members of the House have to take responsibility. If indeed the member opposite believes that she wants this to be available across the country then she, like all of us, has a responsibility to take the steps necessary to pass the bill.

I would point out to the member opposite that the bill includes within it a commitment to ensure that we continue to study the pieces of detail that require further reflection and research. We are committed to doing that. I give her my word.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a new member of the House I am extremely disappointed with respect to the government's actions. Like all new members in the House, the expectation among my residents in supporting me to come to this great place was that I was going to be able to extend my voice in the debates. As we have seen by the actions of the government, what amounts to effectively a basic dictatorship, debates have been stifled in the House.

I want to remind Canadians and I want to remind the government exactly what it said, what it handed to the Governor General in the throne speech. It is proving not to be worth the paper it was written on now. The throne speech said:

Canada succeeds in large part because here, diverse perspectives and different opinions are celebrated, not silenced. Parliament shall be no exception. In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter.

Further on in the throne speech, it says:

And to give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons, the Government will promote more open debate and free votes, and reform and strengthen committees.

Four times now, with Bills C-6, C-10, C-15 and now C-14, we are seeing debate thwarted. Why the hypocrisy on the part of the government? All Canadians deserve to know.

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has raised the fact that with a topic as sensitive and personal as this, there is a great diversity of opinion. I do not think my colleague, the Minister of Justice, nor I need to be convinced of the wide range of opinions on this issue.

We have respectfully and patiently listened to all of those opinions. We have worked with all of the members of the House to achieve legislation that we believe appropriately recognizes the fact that people need to be able to exercise personal autonomy, while at the same time respecting the fact that we need to protect vulnerable people in our country.

The member may not be aware of the fact that the previous government, the party he now sits with, in fact had the opportunity to address the Supreme Court decision a long time ago. In fact, it was February 6, 2015, that the previous government could have begun to take action on this issue. The Conservatives could have brought this issue to Parliament at that time to be discussed and debated. However, it was never brought before Parliament to be discussed, except in a Liberal motion in an attempt to bring it forward.

It was clear from the delay with which the former government approached this issue that it was not serious about developing a comprehensive and careful response to Carter. The task has fallen to us in this House, to this Parliament and to this government. I hope we will recognize the importance and non-partisan role that we now need to play to ensure Canadians will be able to access medical assistance in dying.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use Quebec as an example. In the years ahead, the Quebec National Assembly will serve as an example of what a Parliament can accomplish when it sets partisanship aside.

I understand that the members of the National Assembly had more time to deal with this. Nevertheless, considering all the parties involved in the debate in Quebec, they set an example for us to follow. This absence of partisanship is a real legacy for all Quebeckers, and it shows the kind of results that can be achieved together.

Here, the only legacy that our consideration of Bill C-14 will leave for Canadians is a reminder of a dark day for democracy, when the government's sunny ways were tossed out the window.

The only thing that is remarkable about our current debate on Bill C-14 is the abuse on the part of this government. During the election campaign, the Liberals promised over and over again to be different. The only way this government is any different than the last government is that it is even worse.

Now that Quebec has become a model to be emulated in the future, does the minister really want our handling of such an important bill to become an example of what not to do?

Is this really the legacy we want to leave for our children? I think that we would not want to be remembered as a Parliament that did not work because of a government that kept imposing gag orders.

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Once again, I want to remind my colleague, and as I alluded to earlier, that the Quebec situation is very different from the situation we face today.

The topic had been discussed in Quebec for a number of years. The Government of Quebec was not facing a deadline by which time it had to put legislation in place. It put in place legislation which, I understand, is working extremely well. For that, I congratulate the Quebec government. It is legislation that is in some respects narrower than the legislation we have put in place, and that perhaps is an acknowledgement of the fact that the views of Canadians and the consultations have allowed us to take further steps on this matter in recent times.

I remind the member opposite that we, unfortunately, do not have the luxury that the Government of Quebec had. We are facing a very important deadline. I have serious reservations about what will happen if we do not meet that deadline. On one hand, I worry about the fact that Canadians will not be able to appropriately access medical assistance in dying for fear the health care providers do not feel they have a protective framework in place. On the other hand, it is important, and I have not had an opportunity to mention this yet, there is very real concern that without a legislative framework in place, vulnerable Canadians will access assistance in dying when adequate safeguards are not in place, and that responsibility lies with us all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, part of my concern is that a number of opposition members are trying to promote a falsehood, which concerns me a great deal.

The essence of the falsehood is that the government on numerous occasions has afforded every member of the House the ability to address this very important issue. It is the opposition that has opposed the unanimous consent that denied those members the opportunity to speak.

The government has gone out of its way on numerous occasions to ensure that every member has the opportunity to speak to this legislation.

If a member feels they have been disenfranchised in being able to speak, they need to talk to their House leadership team. Would the member agree with that?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his reminder of this very important fact. I want to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for their work in trying to find ways to address this crunch we are facing, the fact that we do have a deadline.

I know the House leader and his parliamentary secretary have worked with the other House leaders to try to find a way that we can extend hours. It has been very generous of them to offer that opportunity of extending hours late into the night. I am disappointed that they were unable to find consensus with the other House leaders to make this available. I hope those members who are disappointed about the lack of opportunity to address this bill will speak to their appropriate House leaders on this matter.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about maybe a quarter of the members who had the opportunity to speak at second reading. A lot of people expressed reservations. A number of amendments were made in the committee, as well as a number of amendments that we will vote on tonight with no time to discuss them.

I have some simple questions. When did this come back to the House? What did we debate on Monday? What did we debate on Tuesday, at the government's request? It was not this legislation. The Liberals could have called it anytime they wanted and they refused to do that.

We offered to debate until midnight each night. Instead, we debated Bill C-6 and Bill C-11. Therefore, the Liberals should not talk to me about time frames in getting it back.

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my hon. colleague has participated in some of the committee debate that has taken place, and has recommended some suggestions related to this legislation. I want to thank her for her thoughtfulness in participating in this.

The committee process, as my hon. colleague is aware, was an effective process. Sixteen amendments were agreed upon, several of them with all-party support. I believe there have been opportunities on several occasions in the House, in the committee process, and with the special parliamentary committee to ensure there was an abundance of opportunities for all members of the House to contribute.

We will continue to work on this legislation. I hope we will meet the deadline of June 6 and this legislation will be passed. We are firmly committed that once the legislation is passed, the next chapter begins, that we will look at those difficult questions around mature minors, around advance directives, around the matter of palliative care. There are many other matters, such as patients with mental illness, which is a very serious one. There are many unanswered questions. This legislation will be assessed. I suspect we will be discussing it for decades to come.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the minister. I am going to ask a serious question, and I hope she has the respect for me and the House to answer it correctly.

In the Carter decision, the Supreme Court said clearly that people should be able to access physician-assisted suicide who had a grievous and irremediable condition. The issue of whether the condition had to be terminal was addressed specifically throughout the court process and rejected. Yet the government brought legislation before the House that would not adopt the Supreme Court's test of grievous and irremediable, but would add the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable or, in other words, the additional criterion that the condition must be terminal. The Alberta Court of Appeal yesterday ruled three to zero that this was unconstitutional and did not conform with the Carter case.

When my hon. colleague talks about her concern for access on June 6, does she not realize that she is going to deny access? This bill would deny access to people accessing physician-assisted suicide if it adds the requirement that their condition be terminal, when the Supreme Court of Canada specifically has said that is not required.

Would the minister tell the House why she is proceeding with a bill that we know right now is unconstitutional and would deny access to many Canadians by requiring them to have a terminal condition, which the Supreme Court of Canada specifically has said is not required?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague will find that I will always treat him with the utmost respect, as he always treats me. I thank him for all of his outstanding work as the critic for health for his party. I look forward to many further conversations with him.

As my hon. colleague knows, I am not a lawyer. However, my understanding of the Carter decision, as I have read it and discussed it with legal colleagues, is that it is based on two specific cases. It uses the term “grievous and irremediable”. It very specifically makes the point that it does not presume to make a decision on behalf of all Canadians. Rather, it presumes to make a decision on behalf of those specific cases. I understand that within the House, and across Canada, there are various interpretations about what the implications of that are for terminal conditions.

I am aware of the decision that was made in Alberta yesterday. That decision specifically said that it was not a commentary about the charter or Bill C-14. Rather, it was a commentary about a specific case and whether it met the criteria for exemption that had been set out in this interim period. It is because of that case and the fact that we have not developed safeguards for terminality in medical assistance in dying that enforces for us why it is important we get this in place. There is very clear solid evidence that the number of physicians who are prepared to provide medical assistance in dying drops considerably with respect to non-terminal cases, and where mental illness is involved, it is even more unlikely physicians will be willing to participate.

It is a very serious matter. I look forward to further discussion and debate on this. We fundamentally believe the legislation is the right legislation for Canada.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week when the Speaker was ruling on whether to allow us to consider amendments at report stage, he declared this to be a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation and opportunity for members of Parliament. Rather than embrace that, the government is shutting off debate at every stage for this once-in-a-generation piece of legislation.

There are many different views on all sides of the House. However, earlier this week, out of spite for having almost lost a vote with its huge majority, the government called Bill C-10, Bill C-6, and debate on the Copyright Act. After less than one-third of the members of Parliament in the House had been afforded the opportunity to speak, it cut off debate. It moved it on a Wednesday so there would be even less time for debate than on any other day in the House. There will be less than an hour of debate taking place on this bill, this once-in-a-generation piece of legislation, due to the tactics of the government House leader and the Liberal government.

Is the minister proud of the government using procedural tactics to shut down debate after less than a third of the members of Parliament have had an opportunity to pronounce on behalf of their constituents on a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have already alluded to the fact that it is unfortunate that the debate on this did not begin in February 2015. Instead, we find ourselves in a situation where we are facing a very serious deadline.

I would agree with my hon. colleague that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will be dealing with in this session. Because of that, it is very important that we have legislation that is appropriate for Canada for now. We recognize there is a wide range of opinions, even in the House. Many people wish we did not have this legislation at all and many people wish the legislation went much further. We have found an approach that is right for Canadians.

However, I want to point out for my hon. colleague that we have made it very clear within the legislation itself that the day this bill is passed we will address some of those more thorny and difficult issues. I have heard loud and clear from my colleagues about their interest in discussing the matter of advanced directives. That is perhaps the most common question I have been asked. We are prepared to look at that.

As with any other legislation in the House, we expect there will be further amendments. However, we have to get the initial legislation passed by June 6.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.