Debates of May 19th, 2016

Physician-Assisted Dying

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, and as we have done from the beginning, we have every intention of giving all members a chance to speak, given the importance and sensitivity of Bill C-14.

However, we also recognize that the Supreme Court has given the government and Parliament a deadline, which is June 6. We believe it is important to strike a balance between the need to hear from all members and the need to abide by the Supreme Court ruling and pass balanced legislation by that deadline.

Business of the House

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the government has finally listened to reason and withdrawn Motion No. 6, which was nothing less than a straitjacket imposed on the Parliament of Canada.

Nonetheless, it will take more than that to change the prevailing climate around here. For weeks, the government has repeatedly used closure motions for no good reason.

Will the Prime Minister also stop the excessive use of closure motions here in Parliament in order to give members a chance to speak?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, we have withdrawn Motion No. 6 from the Order Paper.

We are always looking for opportunities to work with all our colleagues in the House of Commons in order to extend the hours of debate in a respectful and appropriate tone and to allow Parliament to study our government's important bills.

However, we are aware that we have obligations to Canadians and we intend to carry out our term in a respectful manner and to work with all parties on this measure.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Liberals have finally taken back Motion No. 6. That was the most draconian power grab that any government has ever attempted in Canadian history. It is good that they have pushed that back.

However, there are other ways the government can finally start working with opposition parties. It can stop the rush to closure. It can actually provide calendars so we know what is being debated day to day. It can stop changing the Order Paper at the last minute.

Will the government finally start working with opposition parties in this Parliament?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we have consistently tried to work constructively with all members of the House.

We agree with the colleagues across the way that it is important to have more respectful debate on legislation and on motions. We also agree with my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby that certainty and predictability, as he just referenced in terms of the Order Paper, are important parts of respectful parliamentary debate.

We will continue to work with all members to improve these issues, but we will also be conscious of the commitments we made to Canadians and the important legislation we have before the House. It is our intention to find the appropriate way to pass it.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is the reality. Here is what has been happening.

By its own actions, the government showed a deep disrespect for Parliament this week. There are serious and substantial issues before the House. The Liberals are shutting down debate and stripping the ability of MPs to hold them to account.

Whether they voted for a government or an opposition member, Canadians want their voices heard. When exactly did the Liberals decide to turn their back on sunny ways in favour of these strong arm tactics?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle that it is important to have more respectful debate in Parliament.

I hope she will agree with me that, particularly with respect to Bill C-14, medical assistance in dying, we have tried on numerous occasions to allow the House to continue for extended hours so all members of Parliament can be heard on this important issue. We will continue to urge the House to do that.

However, we are also conscious of the deadline that the Supreme Court imposed on Parliament, and we think it is important to have the appropriate balanced legislative framework in place by that deadline.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they gave us the same old story as the former Conservative government, and they even went further.

They want to give themselves all the power in the House in order to force us to pass their problem-riddled bill, to force us to accept the loss of 2,400 jobs at Aveos, even though that broke the law, and to force us to accept their solution to medical assistance in dying, even if it goes against the Supreme Court ruling.

When exactly did the Liberals decide to move from their sunny ways to bully tactics?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it comes as no surprise to anyone that I do not fully agree with my colleague.

However, I do agree with her that we need to encourage more respectful debates in the House on all the important bills that the government has introduced in Parliament to fulfill the promises that we made to Canadians during the last election campaign. We will continue, as we always have, to try to work with everyone in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

Democratic Reform

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition comes to the House to represent the 60% of Canadians who do not support the Liberals.

In the past few days, the Liberals have been pulling their own fire alarms to prevent MPs from doing their work. They tried to punish us for their mistake by bringing in Motion No. 6. We appreciate the fact that they have now announced that they are withdrawing that, but I do know that they are only withdrawing it after the massive backlash from not only opposition parties, but Canadians, and even their friends in the media.

The Prime Minister has withdrawn this anti-democratic motion to rig the rules of the House. Will he now withdraw his anti-democratic attempts to rig the voting system by changes to the electoral system?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that our democratic institutions must evolve. We all agree, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition just said, that we represent the voices of the Canadians who brought us to this place.

We need to take responsibility for this privilege and work together to ensure that the changes we bring forward are relevant to the 21st century and include the voices of those who do not normally engage in this process.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals need to take responsibility for the bizarre actions of the Liberal government over the past few days.

Motion No. 6 was a glimpse into the mind of a Prime Minister when he does not get his way. Canadians have every reason to be worried about what the Liberals plan to do with the voting system of Canadians.

Will the government commit to dropping its attempts to rig the system and promise Canadians a referendum?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise that this process has failed before it has even begun.

We need to work together to find common ground. We need to ensure that the voices of those Canadians who sent us to this place are reflected in the conversations.

I urge all members to bring their ideas forward and to help strengthen this process and our democratic institutions.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government decided to withdraw Motion No. 6. That is a good thing. Well done. The government has also just told us that it will allow a free and full debate on Bill C-14. That is great.

However, we need to be careful. We got burned on the bill on medical assistance in dying. At second reading, on two separate occasions, government representatives rose to interrupt the debate and put an end to second reading. That is completely unacceptable. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is an honourable man. Will he give us his word that every parliamentarian who wants to speak to this bill will have the opportunity to do so and that no government representatives will rise to stop debate?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I said, we respect the need to ensure that all of our parliamentary colleagues have the opportunity to speak to the bill on medical assistance in dying, including our colleagues in the Senate. That is what all parliamentarians want.

However, as I said, we are under a deadline from the Supreme Court. We did not choose that deadline, but we are going to try to meet it. We are going to try to work with everyone to find the right balance.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was not my question. Will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rise and give his word that no government representative will rise to stop debate on this very sensitive bill at second and third reading, yes or no? There is no call for partisanship on this bill. We want the minister to give his word.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleague will agree with me that we have tried many times to find a way to extend the hours of debate. At one point, I even moved exactly the same motion as my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle, but the House did not support it.

We remain optimistic and we are going to work with everyone to ensure that as many people as possible are able to speak to Bill C-14. However, we are also going to show respect for the Supreme Court and the decision that it imposed on Parliament.

Democratic Reform

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government promised a new era of respect for Parliament. Instead, after just six months, we have the Liberals shutting down debate for the first time in our history on an end-of life conscience matter.

The Liberals tried to rig the rules of this place to the government's total advantage through Motion No. 6. We commend them for withdrawing that, but now they are trying to rig the very system that elects members to this place.

The minister has just said that we need to hear the voices of those Canadians who brought us to this place. Those were 17.5 million voices that will be excluded by her closed, Liberal-controlled parliamentary process.

Why will the government not really demonstrate a commitment to democratic reforms through a referendum?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition said in her remarks at the beginning of question period today, we represent the voice of every Canadian. I would urge my colleagues in the House to move beyond the repetitive questions asked every day. Let us engage in a productive exchange of ideas. Let us work together and seize this historic opportunity to bring our electoral system into the 21st century.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the minister to move beyond her repetitive non-answers, beyond her refusal to allow the Canadian people to decide the manner by which they elect their representatives.

The minister stands and pretends that a few hundred witnesses at a committee are more inclusive than a referendum that could involve 17 million or more voters. What does she not understand about this?

This is a simple question of the legitimacy of this place. Does the government really think Canadians will accept a rigged system chosen by and for the Liberal Party of Canada?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we have not decided on a system yet. We have simply taken the first step in fulfilling our promise to Canadians, over 60% of whom who said our democratic institutions needed to be modernized, needed to be strengthened, needed to be more relevant. We took that first step a week and a day ago. We introduced a motion to bring together an all-party parliamentary committee, and we look forward to working with all members and not prejudging the outcome of that work.

Medical Assistance in Dying

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

Mr. Speaker, after applauding Quebec's non-partisan approach in dealing with medical assistance in dying, the Liberal government is taking the exact opposite approach.

It is stifling debate, refusing to listen to experts about the constitutionality of the bill, and rejecting the opposition's most important amendments. Even the Alberta Court of Appeal has contradicted the government. Bill C-14 does not comply with the Carter ruling.

How can the Liberals put forward a bill that could be challenged the very moment it is passed?

[Jane Philpott, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that it is very important that we move ahead. The Supreme Court has made it clear to us that Canadians have a right to medical assistance in dying. We have seen, even this week, by the decision that was made in Alberta at a Court of Appeal, that in fact it is very important that a regulatory framework be put in place so this assistance can be provided safely.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, legislation on medical assistance in dying is a difficult, sensitive issue. Canadians have legitimate and heartfelt concerns and all of us in this place share a responsibility to get this right. It has been so disappointing to see the government's approach. It rejected an all-party committee report, ignored testimony about the unconstitutional nature of the bill, and rejected amendments that would fix that. All the while, it falsely claims that everything is the opposition's fault.

Will the government drop the strong-armed tactics and work with us to fix this deeply flawed bill?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as has been said many times, this is a deeply complex and personal issue. We have been working incredibly hard with all members in the House to have detailed discussions to ensure we comply with the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline, to ensure that we have in place a legal framework for medical assistance in dying in our country, a framework that will ensure there is balance between personal autonomy and protections of the vulnerable. We need to have a system in place by June 6 to ensure safeguards are in place around medical assistance in dying in our country.