Debates of May 4th, 2016

Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague across the aisle about the sensitive nature, the deeply emotional, and complex realities in our consideration of Bill C-14. Putting in place a medical assistance in dying regime in our country is transformative. It is a paradigm shift.

There has been substantive debate. There have been submissions made by 84 members in the House. There was ample opportunity to debate this.

Ten members from the member opposite's party had the opportunity to speak, and members from his party stopped speaking last night at 11:00 o'clock.

We need to fundamentally ensure that we meet the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline of June 6. We are endeavouring to do so to ensure we can get this substantive piece of legislation through the parliamentary process to comply with the Supreme Court's deadline.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the application of the guillotine motion is outrageous. The government is behaving as though it is a prankster in a model parliament.

Almost two-thirds of the official opposition caucus have been denied the opportunity to debate this important moral issue. An even greater percentage of Liberal members have been denied the opportunity.

On one of the most important moral issues to be debated in the House for years, why is the government not extending evening sittings?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the importance of this piece of legislation. Knowing and ensuring that we need to comply with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on June 6, parliamentarians have an obligation to do so.

The hon. member's party stood in the way of having unlimited debate on this matter in this House on a substantive piece of legislation. We need to ensure that we provide the ability to get this into committee to have further discussion.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am completely astounded. A similar process in Quebec lasted no less than six years and they want me to believe that, after 21 hours of debate, we will achieve the same thing. The House is probably where there is the broadest representation of all the opinions that can be expressed across Canada. Does the minister really believe that by cutting short the debate she will be able to establish a consensus?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this is an incredibly difficult and sensitive issue. It is imperative that we meet our responsibilities as parliamentarians and put in this complex regulatory regime by the Supreme Court's deadline of June 6. It would be irresponsible if we did not put those measures in place.

We are working incredibly hard, as have parliamentarians from all sides of this House, to contribute toward a special joint committee report that provided recommendations. It is our government that has provided the forum to engage parliamentarians in this substantive discussion.

We need to ensure that the discussion continues at committee. We need to ensure that the discussion continues in and around the kitchen tables of this country. This is a paradigm shift. This is an important subject that we need to ensure continues to be at the height of our political debate. That is the undertaking we are making.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very troubled by this decision. This is one of the most important issues facing this Parliament.

Last week, I opened myself up and said I would have round tables day and night until every person in my riding has had the opportunity to come to a round table and talk to me about it. I may or may not get to speak to the input that they gave me except for some suggestions that I have.

Again, I know the committee. I was there two days ago. The committee is reflecting on this legislation as we speak. There is no excuse for the government to cut debate early this week.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have had substantive discussion in this House. About 84 members of Parliament have spoken to this. Some Conservative members have actually spoken more than once with respect to this important discussion.

I look forward to ensuring that this substantive piece of legislation is put through the parliamentary process to get it to committee, so we can continue to have those discussions, and where there are well-considered amendments to be proposed, we can have those considerations.

The bill needs to receive third reading and then go to the other chamber. This is a commitment. This is a direction of the Supreme Court of Canada. We have the utmost respect for that institution and we will meet that deadline of June 6.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.

I have heard the official opposition suggest that the deadline of June 6 imposed by the Supreme Court is an arbitrary one and is wondering why the government has not gone back to seek a further extension.

Of course, the government originally sought a six month extension of the suspension of the offending sections of the Criminal Code but was only granted a four month extension.

Does the minister believe that there is actually any substantive merit to the new legal issues that would actually allow the Supreme Court to revisit this particular issue?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an incredible pleasure to have the member back in the chamber, and I thank him for the question.

As he quite rightly pointed out, when we formed government, we recognized that there had not been substantive discussions on this really important issue.

The Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision on February 6, 2015. When we came into government, we sought to put in place substantive measures and steps to ensure that we engaged Canadians and parliamentarians on this particular issue.

We asked for an extension of the Supreme Court deadline. We asked for six months and we received four months. The Supreme Court of Canada, in issuing its decision, said that this was an extraordinary step to extend the deadline, and certainly they referenced the reality of a federal election.

We would not, in my view, be successful if we went back to the Supreme Court once again to seek an extension.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult debate because it is not about Bill C-14. It is about democracy in this place. The reason it is not democracy is that for the last four years under the majority Conservative government, we saw the illegitimate use of closure more than 100 times in this place. We looked to the new government and we believed in the mandate that there would be greater respect for opposition parties.

My faith in that was crushed by the decision of the hon. House leader to insist that Liberals at committee pass a motion that deprived me of my rights at report stage. Now we have closure on this matter.

I have the utmost respect for the Minister of Justice. I hold her in high esteem, so I ask her this question. In balancing the harms, the harm to democracy in this place versus the risk that taking the time to do Bill C-14 right might take us beyond June 6, would there be harm done? That is my key point as a lawyer. The Supreme Court of Canada decision could take effect. We could be late having royal assent and there could be a—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge my colleague across the way for her questions and concerns. Certainly, we are speaking about time allocation. I would share my colleague's discussion and prominence in terms of putting democracy and participatory democracy at the front of everything that we do. We have provided substantive discussion on this really important issue. Many members have been able to stand and speak to this issue.

Looking at the Supreme Court of Canada deadline of June 6, we need to put a federal framework in place. If we were to eclipse that deadline, there would be no procedural safeguards. There would be no safeguards to protect the vulnerable. It is incumbent upon parliamentarians to do the job that the Supreme Court of Canada asked us to do and put in place a federal framework by June 6.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply outraged by the government's attitude, but I am not surprised by it.

This is yet another demonstration of the ugliness of Liberal hypocrisy, as if we needed another. Those people brag about their lofty principles, but when the time comes to act, they do exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.

At the beginning of this debate, which should not be coloured by partisanship, the Prime Minister said they would draw inspiration from what happened in Quebec. That is great, because I know all about that. I was in Quebec when it happened. There was no motion to shut down debate. On the contrary, all members who needed or wanted to express themselves in the assembly could do so. That is exactly the opposite of what we are seeing here.

The fact is that one-third of Conservative members and, I gather, about the same fraction of NDP members have had a chance to speak. However, barely one-sixth of the Liberal members have spoken. During the debate yesterday, at around 1 p.m., a Liberal Party member rose to shut down debate. Three Liberal members who rose afterward would not have had the chance to do so had her motion been successful.

Why are we seeing so much Liberal hypocrisy yet again?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in this matter. We must respond to the Supreme Court's decision. The deadline is June 6. I recognize and respect the incredible amount of work that has taken place in the province of Quebec with respect to bringing into force its legislation on end of life. There was no deadline with respect to that. We must comply with our deadline.

Not to necessarily respond to hypocrisy, but the Supreme Court decision was made on February 6, 2015. Our Prime Minister introduced a motion on February 24 to put in place a special committee that would start to have this discussion among parliamentarians. The deadline for reporting back of that special committee, had that motion passed, would have been the end of July. It is the members on the other side of the House who voted against that motion.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly disappointing to rise on what is surely a dark day for parliamentary democracy and a dark day for Canada. It is incredible that members on that side of the House are laughing about shutting down debate on one of the most important issues that this Parliament will confront, an issue that impacts thousands of Canadians not just for today but for decades to come. They are laughing as they shut down debate after two-and-a-half days.

[Some hon. members]

They're still laughing.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

And they're still laughing, Mr. Speaker. It's shameful.

I was particularly astounded that the Minister of Justice would stand and justify shutting down parliamentary debate on this most important issue on the basis that it was necessary to meet the June 6 deadline. She stood in the House minutes ago—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did, in fact, stand in the House and say that we needed to comply with the Supreme Court's June 6 deadline. Some 84 members spoke during 21 hours of debate on this legislation. We need to ensure that everybody who wants to speak has that opportunity provided to them.

We need to ensure that we get this legislation to committee and recognize that there is going to be back and forth. We need to hear from Canadians and from experts at committee. The bill needs to come back here for third reading, then it needs to go to the other Chamber, and go through a similar process.

Our responsibility as parliamentarians is to ensure that we acknowledge and meet the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline and put in place a medical assistance in dying regime in this country. That is our responsibility.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the best way for this government to hit a wall, and this may be what they want, is to try to divert attention away from the substance of the debate by focusing on the form. The best way to get us to overlook the minister's intentions is to do exactly what she is doing.

I remind members that the committee is presently sitting, even before the House has voted on passing the bill in principle at second reading. There cannot be a third House that sits at the same time.

Even though in response to my questions she told me that she wants a debate, her actions today are intended to draw our attention to the form. Finally, she presumes that hearing from 80 or so members is sufficient for us to gain an understanding of such a sensitive issue. That is unfortunate.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that my friend across the way had the opportunity to speak twice with respect to this debate.

I am in no way diminishing the substance of this fundamentally important issue. This is a transformative discussion that we are engaged in and one that Canadians will continue to be engaged in with respect to medical assistance in dying. This conversation is not going to go away.

As parliamentarians we need to ensure that we meet the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline of June 6. The only way that a committee can go to clause-by-clause and introduce amendments is if the bill is there.

We look forward to a substantive discussion with all members of the justice and human rights committee and look forward to the discussion and results of the study in the other chamber as well.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this place for 19 years. I have been a student of parliamentary history much of my life. I cannot recall, and I stand to be corrected, a single instance where a government imposed the guillotine on a debate on a matter of grave moral conscience, on a matter of life and death ethics, on a matter such as euthanasia, capital punishment, or abortion.

The ancient convention in this and other Westminster parliaments on such matters has been to allow every interested member to speak. We do not regard such speeches as constituting opposition filibusters. I understand that from time to time governments must control the legislative calendar on emergency back-to-work legislation or to shut down opposition filibusters, but allowing members to speak on a free vote, on a matter of grave moral conscience, is the ancient convention of this place.

Can the Minister of Justice offer a single counter example of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from every member in the House who wanted to speak. I would ask the member across the way why his party stopped debate.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!