Jody Wilson-Raybould

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2016]

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.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2016]

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.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2016]

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.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2016]

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.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2016]

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.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2016]

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.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2016]

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.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2016]

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.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2016]

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.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to speak about this. We recognize that the Supreme Court of Canada has put in place a deadline of June 6. We respect the Supreme Court of Canada in terms of responding to the Carter decision and have put forward Bill C-14 to do just that.

There has been substantive debate in the House. We have had over 21 hours of debate. Eighty-four members of Parliament, from every party in the House, have had the opportunity to speak.

We need to ensure we meet the court's deadline. We need to get this into committee so if amendments are proposed, they can be proposed at the committee stage.

I would further respectfully submit that yesterday we tried to extend the sitting hours as late as necessary to ensure that all MPs who wanted to speak had the opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, the opposition decided to limit the hours of debate.