John Barlow

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about what I think is one of the most important issues that we will ever face in this Parliament. I know this is going to be a very difficult debate in the House, as physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are deeply emotional not only to us in the House but obviously to our constituents.

First of all, I would like to say that I am very relieved to see addressed in Bill C-14 some of the concerns that were raised by my Conservative colleagues and Canadians across the country.

The recommendations included in the report from the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying were extremely troubling and went well beyond the parameters outlined in the Supreme Court's Carter decision. My Conservative colleagues and I, as well as Canadians across the country, voiced our concerns on the far-reaching recommendations in the report, and we urged the Liberal government to tighten safeguards in this legislation.

My constituents were concerned with the broad and vague guidelines in some of these recommendations. Like many of my Conservative colleagues, I felt it was very important to discuss these recommendations with my residents, and I held several open houses across the constituency. I held these open houses because I felt it was critical to get feedback from southern Albertans on their feelings on doctor-assisted dying.

However, I also thought it was important to raise awareness about some of the recommendations that could potentially be part of the legislation before us. Initially, I think we saw that the vast majority of Canadians supported doctor-assisted dying, but I would like to say that I think the vast majority of those Canadians who support it were unclear about what could potentially be part of the legislation.

I think in their minds, they saw doctor-assisted dying as involving an adult suffering with a terminal physical ailment, and that became abundantly clear at the open houses that I had in my constituency, which had anywhere from 30 to 300 people, including many of my rural physicians. Almost every single person at these open houses—supportive of doctor-assisted dying or not—was shocked at the potential that could have been in the legislation upon seeing the recommendations that were part of that special joint committee.

These people certainly did not expect that doctor-assisted dying would be available to mature minors. They certainly did not expect it to be available to people suffering from mental illness. They also expected that there would be protection for physicians on decisions of conscience, and very strict guidelines around advance directives. Since I held those open houses and started to raise some awareness within the constituency with my residents, I received hundreds of emails and letters from residents who are very concerned about the potential ramifications in Bill C-14.

Generally, people in Foothills want to make sure that vulnerable people in our society are protected in the legislation, and I believe Canadians want the same. I am pleased to see some of the concerns that we raised are included in Bill C-14, which did not include mature minors and did not include people with mental illness. However, the legislation says that those things will still be studied, which means the door is wide open for mature minors and people with mental and psychological illnesses to be part of the legislation in the future.

However, there are still some other issues that I think were not addressed, such as protection for our physicians in decisions of conscience, and palliative care. In all the meetings I hosted, palliative care came up repeatedly. Many of my residents feel that palliative care was truly never addressed as part of the legislation.

We are blessed to have a facility in my riding, the Foothills Country Hospice. I have toured this facility many times and spoken with patients and their families. I could see that the hospice has been a godsend—I got that from their responses—and has become such a wonderful, important part of our community.

Accessible, consistent, and effective palliative care programs across the country would consistently support people in their end-of-life care. Unfortunately, palliative care is not offered on a consistent basis across this country. The report recommended that palliative care be an integral part of doctor-assisted dying legislation, and this is one recommendation in the report with which I wholeheartedly agree.

If we proceed with medical-assisted dying, palliative care must be a fundamental piece of this program. However, palliative care was not mentioned in the 2016 budget, nor has there been any funding whatsoever committed to a national palliative care program.

Foothills residents also spoke resoundingly about the need to protect physicians' and other medical professionals' rights of conscience. Overwhelmingly, my constituents felt that no one should be compelled to administer physician-assisted dying if doing so was contrary to their personal beliefs and ethics. Additionally, almost everyone who spoke to me recognized that referring a patient to another physician to assist in their death does not absolve that first physician from the ethical dilemma.

In my riding of Foothills, the rural towns have one or two, if any, doctors. Imposing on a doctor in a rural community to participate in doctor-assisted dying puts those rural physicians in a very difficult position in those small towns. They need to have a choice, and we need to show leadership to give them that choice. We cannot download that burden on to provinces or the provincial colleges of physicians and surgeons. Physicians across Canada need our support and our leadership, and that should be part of Bill C-14.

In addition, there needs to be some support structure for physicians who would be participating in doctor-assisted dying. They would be facing mental health issues, as we are now seeing in Quebec. We must ensure there are programs in place to support our physicians in dealing with the potential emotional and mental scars of participating in doctor-assisted dying. Canadians want to achieve a healthy balance between the person seeking physician-assisted death and a physician's own charter rights to abstain from this procedure if it violates the physician's moral ethics and faith.

The Supreme Court came up several times in conversations I had in my riding. Residents are frustrated that the Supreme Court would presume to dictate a law upon parliamentarians. Canadians understand we elect parliamentarians in our country to make laws and the Supreme Court is in place to rule on the constitutionality of those laws. They do not understand, however, why the Supreme Court, an unelected body, is now dictating law to our elected House of Commons and why it is implementing such an unreasonable timeline to come up with the law. My constituents and, I believe, many Canadians are understandably upset that this is how physician-assisted dying came forth.

What does this have to do with this debate? This inversion of the process has left parliamentarians and Canadians scrambling under an unreasonable timeline to develop a complicated piece of legislation that not only ensures that the rights of all involved are protected, but also that the safety of our most vulnerable is also protected. This conversation and public debate simply require more time than has been afforded us currently.

Usually at the end of any of my speeches in debate I encourage hon. members of the House to either vote in favour or against whatever piece of legislation we are debating. Today I am not going to do that. I believe the first priority in this is to ask the Supreme Court for more time. This is one of the most important decisions that we will ever make as parliamentarians, and I truly believe this is a decision that should not be made on an arbitrary timeline. The consequences of this legislation are irreversible. If we make a bad choice now, someone may die who should not have. Canadians on both sides of the issue deserve better. In fact, they deserve our best.

The government has failed on this issue by not challenging the Supreme Court on this timeline. When Quebec developed similar legislation, it took more than six years. We are trying to do something similar in six months. This type of legislation should not be done in weeks. It should be done over a complete mandate of a government.

As parliamentarians, can we honestly say that we have had an opportunity to consult and speak with all stakeholders? Can we really say Canadians have had enough time to digest the implications of the bill and have been given sufficient time to provide feedback to their representatives?

The Supreme Court's decision has made it clear that we will have doctor-assisted dying. As a member of Parliament, my focus here is to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in Bill C-14 to protect the most vulnerable in our society: children, people with disabilities, those with mental health issues, and our seniors.

Can each of us in the House look our constituents in the eye and say we have done our due diligence in just a few weeks? Can we say with confidence that the safeguards in the legislation are properly in place to protect those who need our support and our help? In the short amount of time we have been given, I simply cannot make that claim.

Unfortunately, it appears the government is not going to ask for an extension. In fact, it is no longer even putting up speakers to participate in the debate. On one of the most important issues that we will face as parliamentarians, the Liberals are not even participating. They are silencing the voice of Canadians who desperately want to talk about this important issue.

I hope we all take the opportunity in the time that is left to speak to our constituents, get their feedback, raise the awareness, talk to them about what the implications of the legislation are. I know people in my riding are extremely split on where they want to go with the legislation. I hope the other parties in the House will follow the Conservatives' lead and allow all of us to have a free vote and speak for our constituents.

[Natural Resources, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, industry has said that investment in Alberta's oil sands will be down more than $60 billion over the past two years, a 63% decrease since 2014. Hundreds of thousands of Albertans have lost their jobs, and they are losing their homes. The Prime Minister has told Albertans that they should hang in there and they should be thankful that things are not worse.

We cannot wait for things to get worse. When is the Liberal government finally going to make an investment in Canada's national energy program?

[Employment, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, shrimp season has just opened in Newfoundland. Today we have heard that the Quinlan Brothers processing plant, which employs about 700 people, has suffered a devastating fire. This disaster will impact not only the community and local plant workers but also the fishermen who land their catch at Bay de Verde. Are the Liberals going to immediately move to give special EI access to these affected workers?

[George Lane, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to honour a great Albertan, George Lane.

George Lane was a legendary rancher and, as a member of the Big Four, a founding father of the Calgary Stampede. He was a former owner of the Bar U Ranch, the national historic site in my riding of Foothills. It is still a living tribute to our Canadian cattle industry.

George Lane epitomized the western spirit: a tireless work ethic, a community leader, and a visionary entrepreneur.

This weekend, George Lane will be inducted into the prestigious hall of great westerners at the National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum in Oklahoma City. This is considered among the greatest honours in western culture, and he will be the first Canadian ever inducted into the hall.

I look forward to joining fellow Albertans this weekend in Oklahoma to honour George Lane's outstanding achievements. This is also a great opportunity to celebrate the heart and soul of Alberta, our rich ranching history.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brings up a good point. We are fooling ourselves if we believe that there has never been any influence or coercion, or strong-arming of members of a business or a company when it comes to forming a union.

What we really need to focus on is ensuring that the RCMP members do not just have the privilege, but that it is their right to have a democratic secret ballot. If the secret ballot is part of this legislation, we will not have to worry about harassment, coercion, and undue influence on their making that decision, because we will have that ballot as part of the decision-making process. That is absolutely key to ensuring that if they do want to unionize, the decision they make on whatever their conscience tells them is best for them.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I missed the beginning of the member's question, but I believe she asked if someone in the field would have the same opportunities. Absolutely, that is part of a collective bargaining process, to have the opportunity to discuss various issues between employees and their union. However, the question we face first before we get to that point is whether they want to certify or decertify and even be in a union. The keystone of that is the opportunity to have a secret ballot in making that decision.

Those other issues will be discussed as part of the collective bargaining agreement, but we cannot get there until there is first trust that the decision made to form a union in the first place is legitimate and that the majority of the members want to be in that union.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear. We do support the outline of Bill C-7, but we are encouraging the Liberal government to take this back to committee and have a fulsome discussion on the merits of a secret ballot over the card check system. I am very relieved to hear from a member of the Liberal government that they are willing to have that discussion. I hope he will follow through on that commitment to have a legitimate discussion on why we should have a secret ballot over the card check system. I think most of us on this side would support Bill C-7 if that were part of the discussion.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, how often do members think those residents would be telling the person at the front door the truth? How would we feel here about it? When there is a card check system vote and they are asking people in a union shop, for example, to raise their hand while everyone else is standing there looking at them, how is that fair and democratic? Compare that to the opportunity for a secret ballot where, with their own conscience, we would know people are making a decision they feel is right for them, with no coercion, no intimidation, and no one influencing their decision.

On that fact, after an election most of us in this House go and speak to our residents. We have all had the discussion at the coffee table or the dinner table about who they are going to vote for the next day. No one wants to tell. They are very reluctant to tell. That is something very private, something we need to hold to ourselves; and we should respect that decision and the foundation and importance of that secret ballot.

I have heard that story over and over again from people in residences. Canadians expect privacy when they are casting their ballots, and that is something we should embrace.

Voting is a very personal action. People cherish the privacy of marking their ballot in secret without intimidation, influence, or coercion. Why would we not make the same basic right for the men and women who put their lives on the line every single day when they put on their uniform to go to work? What could possibly be easier and more straightforward than a secret ballot? There is absolutely nothing more simple: one person, one vote. That is how it should be. Open, transparent results ensure confidence that a true decision was made whether certifying or decertifying a union.

The Liberal Party campaigned on accountability and transparency. By their keeping secret ballots out of this legislation, it is again obvious that the Liberals have no intention of keeping those election promises. Accountability and transparency seem to have gone the way of commitments to a $10 billion deficit, balanced budgets, and dinosaurs. That seems to be all in the same viewpoint of election promises broken time and again.

At the federal level, the previous Conservative government introduced extensive reforms to ensure Canadians have trust in their political institutions. That included legislation like Bill C-525, which ensures union members have the right to a secret ballot. That legislation recognized the right to peaceful association—a right that extends to all workers in Canada, whether they should wish to have a union represent them or not. That is a right that should be passed on to the RCMP as well, if its members choose to form a union. This choice is theirs and theirs alone to make.

The previous card check system for federally regulated industries required 50% plus one to sign a union membership card. It is very clear, despite what my colleague on the other side of the floor would like to say, that this is open to abuse. It has been open to abuse, and certainly there are many stories where employees have been pressured to sign a union card against their will. I know the member rattled off different laws that were in place, but just because a law is written down, I am certain all of us can agree that does not mean it is followed. I am sure we all understand that there are many opportunities where card check systems in place definitely open the door to intimidation and coercion.

To wrap it up, the message I want to get to here is very clear. Members of the RCMP each and every day put their lives on the line to protect our rights, our freedoms, and our democracy. We have one chance here. We are at the root opportunity here in dealing with collective bargaining with the RCMP. This is an opportunity for us here to stand up with our RCMP officers and stand up to protect their democratic rights, and the Liberals will not do it.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it truly is an honour to follow my respected colleague from Yellowhead. I thank him for sharing his time with me. I have a lot of respect for his 35 years of service with the RCMP, protecting the communities of Canada. We are truly blessed to have him as a member of our caucus.

I want to talk a bit about some of the history. I am very blessed to have a deep RCMP and North West Mounted Police history in my riding. Fort Macleod was founded in 1874. It is now a world-renowned museum of the North West Mounted Police in western Canada. Downtown Fort Macleod is now a provincial historic site, as well as the museum.

There is also the Alberta Provincial Police Building in Crowsnest Pass, which was founded in 1918. I am proud to say that the Conservative government last year contributed $100,000 to the refurbishing of that police building to protect its history. I am sure many people in the House would like to know that Corporal Stephen Lawson was killed in front of that building in the early 1900s. One of the accomplices in the shooting was Florence Lassandro. She was convicted of that murder and was the first and only woman ever hanged in Alberta's history. That is a bit of Alberta's history.

Today I want to speak to Bill C-7 and say how disappointed I am. On this side of the House, I think many of us are. We continue to have to challenge the Liberal government on the importance of accountability and transparency when it comes to unions, and specifically the importance of a secret ballot.

Members of the RCMP are out there each and every day protecting our rights, freedoms, and democracy. Why we would miss this opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with them and protect their democratic rights when we have the chance to do so? It is disappointing that we are missing this opportunity by putting forward Bill C-7, which does not include the right to a secret ballot. I ask the Liberal government to send the bill back in order to add the provision of a secret ballot for RCMP members when they are faced with the question of certifying or not certifying as a union. Simply put, that is the right thing to do.

Members of the RCMP have the democratic right to a free and fair secret ballot vote when certifying or decertifying as a union. Every one of us in the House was elected by way of secret ballot. Every member of a provincial or municipal government was elected by way of secret ballot. It only makes sense that we would be sharing that democratic right, not a privilege but a democratic right, to a secret ballot at all levels, including unions.

A secret ballot is the cornerstone of our democracy and at the heart of Canadian values. However, the Liberals have shown again, with the combination of Bill C-7 and Bill C-4, that they see the right of secret ballot as being somehow obsolete. In many cases, they do not feel it is democratic at all, which I find to be extremely disappointing and concerning.

This is about balance and creating a fair environment in which workers are the ones making the choice they feel is best suited to their needs. The Supreme Court decision speaks to allowing the RCMP the right to associate for the purpose of collective bargaining. I think all of us in the House agree and support that decision. However, we also believe this is an opportunity to vote by way of a secret ballot, and it should be a privilege and democratic right that the RCMP have this opportunity.

Our specific intent has always been to preserve the democratic rights of Canadian workers through increasing public confidence in unions, but to have that confidence, unions must operate in a transparent and accountable way without any chance of undue influence or coercion. Our democratic system was designed with a secret ballot as its keystone, specifically to maintain the integrity of the vote and to allow citizens to cast their ballot in privacy.

The jobs minister has made it very clear that she does not believe in the integrity of a secret ballot. In fact, she has said that the card-check system is a much more democratic way to certify or decertify a union. Recently in committee meetings, she was asked why she would repeal Bill C-525, which gave employees the democratic right to a secret ballot to decertify or certify a union. I will read this quote, because her answer was very clear on where she and the Liberal Government stood in terms of democracy. She said:

The card-check system is a perfectly democratic way of gauging support as it ensures that an absolute majority of employees support the union, not just those who come out and vote.

Our jobs minister is saying in committee that a card check system is a much more democratic way to decide if a majority of people support whatever that issue is, over a secret ballot; that somehow when people actually show up to vote for something, they are not legitimate.

I went around door-knocking in my riding, as I know most of the members of this House did as well in their ridings as we went through the election period. If I went up to ask those people for their vote right then, and I wanted them to sign a piece of paper that would tell me that they voted for me while I was standing there, how often do you feel that person would be telling the truth?

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, we appreciate most of Bill C-7, and certainly we want to support our RCMP members and all the work they do, but I find it interesting that the bill does not include the opportunity for RCMP members to have a secret ballot when they wish to unionize. I would like to ask why.

It seems again that, when we are talking about bills on unions and democracy, secret ballots are something the government does not seem to support. I would like to ask why the opportunity for a secret ballot is not included in this legislation.