disable ads
To categorize your tweets related to the Guelph riding add the hashtag #r35027. If you tweet from this page the hashtag will automatically be added to the tweetbox.

Riding Community Tweets (#r35027)

            view more

            Riding Mentions in News, Blogs, Facebook & Hansard

              • MPnews news Bill to empower MPs is proof the public can sway legislation, says Chong - Guelph Mercury
                Green party Leader Elizabeth May and fellow MP Bruce Hyer voted against it, arguing the bill didn't go far enough. The bill has ... The bill would also remove the power of a party leader within the Canada Elections Act to approve election candidates ...and more » read more
                Wed 4:35 pm> |
                • MPlibblog JohnMcKayLib 1451 post Business of Supply

                  Mr. Speaker, I have been here for a good part of the day, listening to this debate, and I want to congratulate colleagues on their largely non-partisan debate. It is actually quite encouraging. I think that, for those who are watching, it is encouraging to see parliamentarians actually engage in an issue that is of deep significance to each and every one of us. I think that, frankly, over the course the day, we have done that in largely quite a respectful manner.

                  What brings us to this point, though, is the Supreme Court decision, which as my colleague just said, is only 18 days old and does put us under the gun, and the gun will explode one way or another on February 6, 2016. In my judgment, it is a carefully crafted judgment; it is also unanimous, it has a date, and it is also an exercise in deference to Parliament because the Supreme Court rightly thinks that Parliament is the appropriate place to craft a legislative response to its decision.

                  In that light, we have basically three alternatives before us.

                  We can do nothing. That is an alternative. The do-nothing alternative means that, in 12 months, we will have legal chaos, and I would extend that even to emotional chaos. I really do not think that Canadians would be very encouraged by their parliamentarians if in fact we did nothing over the next 12 months.

                  The next alternative is to ask for an extension. That is a perfectly legitimate response and has been raised by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, has been raised by the parliamentary secretary speaking on behalf of the government, and has been alluded to by the member from Winnipeg. That is, again, a second alternative and possibly an alternative that we might land on. However, I would not want to be the government lawyer on February 5, 2016, standing before the Supreme Court of Canada, asking for an extension. The first question out of the mouth of the Chief Justice would be to ask what we have done in the last 12 months. If in fact we have done nothing, then I would say that the Supreme Court would be very reluctant to grant the extension.

                  That basically drives us to the third conclusion, which is that we have to start doing something.

                  We have put forward to this chamber a motion to create a special committee to do something, because doing nothing or hoping like heck that somehow or another the Supreme Court would grant us an extension, in another year, are not reasonable alternatives in my judgment.

                  I think, because this is a decision that so uniquely affects 100% of the Canadian population, it behooves us to listen to what Canadians have to say, and so I adopt the reasoning of a former colleague and a good friend for many of us, Preston Manning, who outlined a nine-point process in The Globe and Mail just recently.

                  I will start where he ends. He says:

                  Let the people speak: The courts, the interest groups, the academics and the commentators have had a great deal to say on the pros and cons of physician-assisted suicide.

                  He is absolutely right.

                  Now it is especially important that our elected officials and legislators hear from rank-and-file Canadians.

                  Mr. Manning has put before us a challenge, as has the Supreme Court. I know Mr. Manning a bit, and I know his great respect for listening to what Canadians have to say.

                  In his article, he goes on to talk about when he was a member for Calgary Southwest and he actually convened a number of meetings with his own constituents.

                  His own constituents, by and large, were in favour of legislation involving physician-assisted dying. That was, frankly, contrary to his personal beliefs, so it was interesting for Mr. Manning to be in a situation in which his own constituents were asking him to promote legislation that was not consistent with his own views.

                  In the process, he outlined a number of areas where we need to be concerned.

                  His first point was that we need to be compassionate. I have heard various members over the course of the day talking about various personal situations. Those personal situations are deeply held views and range across the entire gamut of the human experience. The first point, if and when such a committee is composed, is that it be a committee that expresses itself in compassion.

                  The second point that Mr. Manning raises has to do with palliative care. I think it is a relevant point, and it has been raised as well by the member for Timmins—James Bay. I think we are a bit agnostic as to whether the motion needs to be amended to include reference to palliative care, but I know the Liberal Party would be open to such a suggestion.

                  However, our motion was drafted in response to what the Supreme Court said. I think a lot of air would go out of the balloon, for want of a better term, if the Government of Canada and all of the other legislatures in Canada responded to the committee report that the member for Guelph, the member for Timmins—James Bay, and the member for Kitchener—Conestoga put forward. If that response was there, then maybe there would not be as much animus in this debate.

                  The next point has to do with provincial legislation. I and quite a number of colleagues in the House have practised law. We have dealt, from time to time, with situations in which relatives are telling us one thing and the client is telling us something else. Even absent an impending death, or even outside of an impending death, there is conflict within families. I am not telling the House anything new. There is conflict within families, and the conflict frequently spills over into conflicts involving professionals. A clarification of living wills or in some other form through provincial legislation would be very helpful.

                  The next point has to do with the number of letters a lot of us are receiving with respect to doctors and where they find themselves in these difficult situations. A lot of doctors got into being doctors because they are very interested in preserving life and enhancing life, et cetera. They see physician-assisted dying as inconsistent with their own understanding of why they are doctors.

                  That needs to be clarified sooner rather than later, because a lot of doctors, if my correspondence is similar to anyone else's in this chamber, are very conflicted about where they stand without real legislation. If this Parliament does not act by February 6, 2016, to provide some clarification of the law, there will be a very difficult situation for our physician colleagues, who will not know where they stand in the administration of this whole matter.

                  Let me wind up there. Again I commend my colleagues for what I believe to be largely a respectful debate. I do think it is important that the people speak. I do think it is important that we get going on this. If we could start tomorrow morning, I would be happy about that. I am agnostic about whether it has to be a special committee, but my views are that it does have to be a special committee because all of the other committees' agendas are already filled.

                  I am conscious that we have essentially 12 weeks to get through this. It is possible. Where there is a will, there is a way, and I hope that tonight we will get that way.

                  • MPlibblog JohnMcKayLib 230 post Business of Supply

                    Mr. Speaker, a lot of the objections on the government side with respect to this motion have to do with not having enough time. As the member for Guelph rightly said, there is a looming deadline, and that is February next year. We do not have that much time to do it.

                    The argument then becomes that we may have to go to the Supreme Court to ask for an extension. The parliamentary secretary suggested that. The member for Kildonan—St. Paul suggested that.

                    Is it the member's opinion that our position to seek an extension, if in fact that was appropriate, would be much more enhanced if Parliament had engaged, started the process, and actually started to hear witnesses?

                    I point to the chair of the finance committee. It is not unusual for the finance committee to hear 300 or 400 witnesses in the course of a three- or four-month hearing process on pre-budget consultations. It is doable. I would be interested in the member's opinion as to whether our position before the Supreme Court would actually be enhanced by the commencement of a process.

                    • MPnews news Tory MPs want more time on assisted-death - Guelph Mercury
                      Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is slated to begin debate Tuesday on a motion calling on the government to create a special, multi-partisan committee to consult experts and Canadians on the issue. The Liberal motion calls on the ... In a lengthy ... read more
                      Tue 4:03 am> |
                      • sennews news Police still an option in NDP controversy - Guelph Mercury
                        THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld ... Disgraced senators Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Mac Harb have all been charged with allegedly making false claims about the location of their primary residences in order to claim such funds. By Joan Bryden, The ... read more
                        Tue 3:56 am> |

Riding Twitter (MP & Candidates)


The electoral district of Guelph (Ontario) has a population of 114,943 with 91,463 registered voters and 210 polling divisions.

Riding MPs Social Media Stats


Bobbi Stewart
Twitter page
followers: 69
popularity: 0
facebook fans: 0

John Lawson
Twitter pagefacebook page
followers: 1,166
popularity: 1
facebook fans: 0

Riding Associations

Guelph NDP
Twitter pagefacebook page
followers: 370

mp, candidate or riding assotiation missing? add it here

Riding & Local MP Videos

Riding & Local MP Photos

vote.ca Use vote.ca to help find where to vote during a federal election.
user online (33) viewing this page (1)
view mobile version
Processing time: 4.0716 seconds