House of Commons
Medical Assistance in Dying
Much of the debate in the House yesterday focused on what the opposition has called the government’s attempt to limit debate on Medical Assistance in Dying, especially in relation to the altercation on the floor of the House involving the Prime Minister earlier this week. Entire transcripts can be found here.
Question Period
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Leader of the Opposition, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister‘s temper got the best of him, but his behaviour was just an extension of his government’s approach to the House. Increasingly, Liberals treat the House and the voices of Canadians with arrogance and disrespect, and nowhere is that more clear than in Motion No. 6, which would strip the opposition of all of its tools to hold the government to account.
Will the Prime Minister put the words of his apology this morning into action and withdraw this offensive motion?
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the comments made by all of our colleagues and I would like to inform the House that a short while ago, we withdrew Motion No. 6 from the Order Paper.
Our objective remains to work with everyone to find the proper mechanism to extend the sitting hours to allow for a more respectful debate on government legislation and I look forward to working with all members of the House to achieve that objective.
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Leader of the Opposition, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, that is a great start, showing all of the members in the House and Canadians that the Prime Minister respects them.
In that spirit, I am going to ask him this. Will his government also allow every member who wants to speak on the issue of assisted dying, which is a conscience issue, the opportunity to speak?
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that we have been trying to extend the hours and allow for more debate on this very important issue. I think all colleagues will agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we recognize the importance and sensitivity of Bill C-14. It is an issue that touches the lives of many Canadians and all parliamentarians, and we will continue to look for a way to extend the debate and allow every member who wants to speak to speak.
However, we also respect the deadline that the Supreme Court of Canada has asked Parliament to respect and we think there is a proper way to balance those two interests.
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Leader of the Opposition, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court decision is one decision, but Parliament also has a voice, and that is the voice of every Canadian.
Shutting down a debate on a conscience issue is unprecedented, so I will ask the House leader again. We know the Prime Minister has shut down debates time and time again and continues to treat democracy as an inconvenience, but he has two choices here. One is that he can side with us and Canadians and give them a voice. Will he show members of the House and Canadians that he respects them?
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we intend to continue to show Parliament and Canadians that we respect the role of members of Parliament, particularly on an issue and a piece of legislation as sensitive and as compelling as medical assistance in dying, but we also respect the deadline that the Supreme Court imposed on Parliament. We have consistently said that we think it would be irresponsible to go beyond the deadline the Supreme Court gave Parliament and not have the appropriate pan-Canadian legislative framework in place. That continues to be our belief.
Hon. Denis Lebel (Lac-Saint-Jean, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister let his emotions get the best of him. We knew that, and now the Canadian public knows as well. His behaviour yesterday was unworthy of the office of Prime Minister of Canada.
Can the Prime Minister or one of his representatives explain why he lost his self-control yesterday under the circumstances? Was it because things were not going his way?
Hon. Jane Philpott (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have heard the concerns of the House on the matter that took place last evening and we acknowledge those concerns. Members of the House are aware of the fact that our Prime Minister issued an unreserved apology this morning. We look forward to continuing the work of the House in a tone of respect and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the House to further the work of Parliament.
Hon. Denis Lebel (Lac-Saint-Jean, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her answer.
Naturally, we all have very strong feelings about Bill C-14.
Our constituents elected each and every one of us to this place to debate the issues that matter to Canadians. The opposition members have done important work. We produced a dissenting report that was heeded and respected. I thank the government. We need to continue and go even further.
Do the Liberals plan to give members who want to have their say on behalf of Canadians in this debate the opportunity to speak?
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
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.
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP):
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?
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
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.
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP):
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?
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
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.
Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP):
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?
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
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.
Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP):
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?
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
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.
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP):
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?
Hon. Jane Philpott (Minister of Health, Lib.):
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.
Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP):
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?
Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
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.
Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois commends the government for withdrawing Motion No. 6.
With regard to the bill on medical assistance in dying, the leader just said that he is prepared to hear from members. Is he prepared to listen to them?
The reasonably foreseeable natural death provision is not consistent with the Carter decision. Is the government prepared to support the Bloc Québécois’ amendment to remove this criterion, which discriminates on the ground of age and bases eligibility on inhumane conditions such as hunger strikes?
Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his substantive engagement in the discussion around Bill C-14.
We are confident that we have made and put forward a public policy decision around medical assistance in dying in this country. This is a transformative piece of legislation on which we have engaged with many Canadians and many members within this House. We look forward to the continued discussion.
We look forward to ensuring that we reach our deadline of June 6 so that we will have a legislative framework in place for medical assistance in dying that is balanced and which speaks to this transformative piece in the period of time that we are in.
Petitions
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is again from a number of residents in my area. They are calling on the Government of Canada to draft legislation that would include adequate safeguards for vulnerable Canadians, especially those with mental health challenges, have clear conscience protection for health care workers and institutions, and protect children and those under 18 from physician-assisted suicide.
Transgender Rights
Private Members Business
Mr. Ron Liepert (Calgary Signal Hill, CPC) indicated in debate that we will be supporting Bill C-16.
Projected Order of Business
You can see the House’s Projected Order of Business here.
Senate
Medical Assistance in Dying
Senator’s Statements
Hon. John D. Wallace: Honourable senators, you will recall that I spoke yesterday during Senators’ Statements about the need for our Senate Chamber to do everything possible to ensure that we complete all of our senatorial consideration and work on Bill C-14, medical assistance in dying, in order that Parliament be able to meet the June 6, 2016 deadline imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Unfortunately, and not uncommon with me, my comments extended beyond my allotted three-minute time period and consequently I was unable to conclude all of my remarks. I will do that now.
As I stated yesterday, Senate leaders Carignan, Cowan and Runciman are quoted in the media as saying that the Supreme Court’s June 6 deadline will not be met.
Regardless of what each of us might think of the merits of Bill C-14, and all of that will undoubtedly be thoroughly scrutinized and debated when the bill is before the Senate, it would be totally unacceptable if we, as members of this chamber, did not complete our legislative work on this bill such that it would, in whatever form it may finally take, meet the Supreme Court’s imposed deadline of June 6.
There is sufficient time between now and June 6 for all of the legislative work on this bill to be completed. As I pointed out yesterday, there are 18 calendar days, excluding Victoria Day, from May 20 to June 6, 2016. On a matter of this national importance to all Canadians, it is now time for all of us in this chamber to roll up our sleeves and get to work on this bill.
We have sufficient time, but we must be prepared to make full use of it. That could involve working days that we would not otherwise sit, including all of next week and weekends, if necessary, as well as extended late evening hours during our remaining sitting days. We must do whatever it takes. Canadian citizens should expect nothing less from us, and we should expect and require nothing less of ourselves.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Iran
Second Reading
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, seconded by the Honourable Senator Baker, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-219, An Act to deter Iran-sponsored terrorism, incitement to hatred, and human rights violations.
Hon. George Baker: Honourable senators, I want to say a few words about this particular bill, which I support in principle. Before I do, you might notice that I’ve changed position in the chamber and Senator Manning sent me over a note saying that he thought I was being promoted. I have to clarify this point.
The day before yesterday, the whip said to me, “I’m going to put you in the front row.” I said, “Well, that’s good. Why is that?” He said, “You’re a PC, aren’t you?” I said, “Well, no. I was a Liberal, but I did run for the PCs way back in the 1960s.” In fact, it was the year that Senator Manning was born. Then the whip clarified that it was because of the Privy Councillor designation.
I’ve been following case law fairly closely, as you know. It’s my practice every morning — and sometimes every evening — to read case law. I’ve noticed that the Senate is now quoted seven times more than the House of Commons in tribunal and board hearings, quasi-judicial bodies as well, including subjects involving immigration appeals, human rights appeals, and even in the disciplinary appeal procedures of nurses, doctors and lawyers throughout Canada. Seven to one in the past six months. All of those references to the Senate and to senators have to do with committees and the operations of the committees.
As far as our courts are concerned — provincial courts, superior courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada — Senate committees are quoted three times more than the House of Commons is quoted. And that’s been fairly consistent. In the last three months, there are some 16 cases, but I won’t go over those right now. However, I will make reference to a couple that were rather interesting.
In R. v. Trohan, 2016, ABQB 1, the Alberta Queen’s Bench, the superior court of Alberta, at paragraph 30, starting and continuing at 31, 32, 33, it quotes extensively from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs regarding our debates on the faint hope clause.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal in R. v. Goleski, 2014, BCCA 80, being appealed, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce was quoted extensively, starting at paragraph 66, and when you get up to paragraph 76 the court turns to the reason for its examination of the Senate committee.
In none of these cases, by the way, is the House of Commons mentioned. It is the same legislation. The reason for mentioning this, Your Honour, is I’m going to suggest that the real examination of this bill that’s under consideration now should be done in committee, where we really do our good work.
The Court of Appeal, paragraph 76, said:
The parliamentary record relating to the additional words is sparse.
In other words, they couldn’t find out why certain words were put in a particular act of Parliament. Then they go on to say:
It appears as if the words actually originated in the Senate, not for the purpose of shifting the persuasive burden to the prosecution.
The case of R. v. Baumgartner, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, on appeal, quotes Senators Frum, Carignan and Joyal extensively. That’s been done twice now in two particular court proceedings. Fortunately, Senator Carignan was in committee at the time because we’re constantly being referenced in committees, not in the chamber. That’s interesting. It was good that Senator Carignan attended the committee hearing and he’s quoted extensively, along with Senator Frum.
Then we go to 2016, Federal Court 80, a case called Shehzad v. Canada, in which the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology is quoted extensively. It goes into the actual proceedings and the transcript of proceedings of that particular committee, which is extensively quoted.
I note that our Speaker in the chair used to be a chair of our Finance Committee. Next is a case called Hilas v. Canada, 2016-1 CTC 129, and of course they go in again with extensive quotes from the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. They quote Senator Bellemare extensively, and other senators.
We go then to Canada and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency, CAF-237, in which again the Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology is quoted extensively.
Finally, that will give you some indication of why the bill that’s before us at present should be examined, as it always is, in Senate committees so that future references to that bill by quasi-judicial bodies and our courts will take the testimony and the questions by senators in that committee into consideration.
I should make reference to the fact that there’s a recent case out of the Quebec Court of Appeal that recognizes the great work of Senator Joyal. It says, at paragraph 24:
Senator Joyal insists on the constitutional provision relating to the office of the Governor General and the need for unanimity to either transform or abolish the Senate.
Excellent job, and that’s the Senate Reference Case.
Finally, I won’t go into the cases in the last three months, but I will next time I speak at the beginning because I think it is important to have on the record the real work of sober second thought of the Senate. When senators speak in committees, you can be assured that they will be quoted, that they will be read seven times more than the House of Commons right across Canada in the quasi-judicial bodies and tribunals and three times more than the House of Commons in our courts.
Finally, I want to take notice, before I mention something about the bill, that the Clerk of the Senate and his role of keeping records was the subject in a matter in the Tax Court of Canada 2016, TCC 28 two weeks ago. It refers to the important role of the Clerk of the Senate. I’m always interested in these things because I was once the chief clerk and law clerk of a provincial legislature and I know how important it was to keep the records at that time.
Senator Cowan: Is that before Senator Manning was born?
Senator Baker: That was a year after he was born, actually.
The importance of the role of the Clerk and the whole case involved section 7 of the Publication of Statutes Act. It goes on, section 9 of the Publication of Statutes Act, in which it says that:
The Clerk of the Senate shall furnish certified copies of any of the acts mentioned in section 3 to any person applying for a copy, a sealed version of the act required.
And so on. It goes on. The role of the Clerk of the Senate and the issue brought to the court was: Must the Senate Clerk’s certified copy of the act be before the court? In other words, must his certified copy be entered as evidence and the Clerk cross- examined with the certified copy of any change in legislation because it’s his role to keep a copy of all of this certified copy? Fortunately for us, the Tax Court of Canada ruled that the Senate Clerk certified copies and the Senate Clerk public acts need not be before the court. If he were required, we wouldn’t see him at all. I thought I would mention that because it’s a recent case of a week ago.
In conclusion, let me say that I think this is a good bill, it is a private member’s bill, and I would hope that it would go to the Foreign Affairs Committee — Senator Martin — because they are examining legislation similar in character to the subject matter of this legislation under review.
That’s my recommendation. Thank you.
Hon. Elaine McCoy: Would the honourable senator take a question?
Senator Baker: Yes, indeed.
Senator McCoy: I’m always delighted to hear the citations you bring to our attention so frequently and so diligently. I have, as you know, asked you to teach me so that facility doesn’t leave when you leave in January. You are leaving far too early it seems to me.
Let me ask you a question. By way of a preamble, as we are renewing and modernizing the Senate, we are looking for ways to be accountable and transparent, and one of the measures that we might adopt is performance indicators.
One of the performance indicators that might be of use is the impact we have on Canadians and on civil society. The citation index is a performance indicator that academics have adopted for judging their own work. What would you think about systematizing the work you have been doing following our citations into a performance indicator for the Senate of Canada?
Senator Baker: That is an excellent idea. One of the reasons the Senate and its committees are so often quoted today is because about 20 years ago — and I have been reading case law for 45 years on a daily basis. It just interests me. I was an MP for 30 years, and I follow a bill right through to the very end.
I noticed a substantial increase in the use of Senate committees after the publication by Sullivan and Driedger. The Clerk is an expert, and he has written some marvellous, wonderful articles in learned magazines.
The ruling in Driedger regarding the interpretation of statutes starts with, “Well, it is in its ordinary sense as it applies to the section of the act that it is in,” and then the final key is “and the intention of Parliament.” Any judge who has to interpret a piece of legislation must go through this procedure; and then the question is asked, like the Supreme Court of Canada always does: “the intention of Parliament.” That’s a heading.
You see with all of our laws that the courts go to the intention.
Now, it is logical. We’re getting into June. This is the “deemed” month in the House of Commons: deemed to have been read a second time, deemed to have been reported to a committee, deemed to have been dealt with in the committee, deemed to have been reported back without amendment, and deemed to have been read a third time — in one motion, in one day.
Some Hon. Senators: Shame.
Senator Baker: “Shame” is right. We see it every time this time of the year in which a bill is not examined at all. Why? Because it goes to the Senate, and the Senate’s role is to do all of those procedures that the House of Commons does not do.
There are two times of the year when they don’t deal with legislation at all. When they do deal with it, it is in a very inadequate manner. So the Senate has filled that role.
Without the Senate, what would our courts do? What would our judges do? What would our quasi-judicial bodies do, without the Senate examining the legislation and actually delving into the intention of it?
Senator Fraser one day asked a simple question to CSIS. The question was, “Who did you check with? Why didn’t you double- check this particular thing?”
The director of CSIS looked at this transcript and, in a court proceeding that followed, explained to the judge how the entire procedure of CSIS had changed due to this exchange with the senator in the committee.
Sometimes the individual parliamentarian does not realize what their responsibility is, especially in the Senate; in the House of Commons, no, because the House of Commons is a political institution. That’s why the Supreme Court of Canada, in its recent judgment, said that the Senate is a chamber of sober second thought, and also for the investigations we carry out, and that’s what they rely on.
However, the Senate does not have jurisdiction to go against the wishes of the people. That is a condition of our operation; that is, our role is not to defeat legislation but to make it better, to interpret it — and in this particular case, to interpret it for our courts, quasi-judicial bodies and tribunals.
It would be easy to do an index. I subscribe to Westlaw/ Carswell and Quicklaw, and the free ones that are available on the Internet, because you can’t be guaranteed that a case will be reported in either one of them. There is no overlapping in some cases.
It is easy with these search mechanisms on the Internet today, but it is not cheap. It costs $6,000 or $7,000 for a subscription to one of these agencies.
It would be easy to do up such an index. The Library of Parliament has a contract with Westlaw/Carswell, and they can certainly assist us in the future. It is an excellent idea that you have suggested.
Senator McCoy: Would you accept another question?
Senator Baker: Yes.
Senator McCoy: I take it you are speaking today as the critic on the bill in front of us, S-216.
Senator Baker: Yes.
Senator McCoy: This is another question in a somewhat different direction. I’m intrigued by the approach you have taken, and I want to commend you for it. It seems to me that what you are telling us is that you believe in the principle of the bill; that you believe it should go to committee for a thorough, thoughtful review; and that that is a pre-eminent Senate role. To be a good critic of a bill does not mean you have to be in opposition to the bill. Do I understand your position correctly, sir?
Senator Baker: Absolutely. I highlight the fact that we’re constantly trying to adjust in the Senate to make the Senate more relevant. You will notice that there are not many professors of law or lawyers or judges who do not recognize the value of the Senate because of its contribution.
Need you communicate that? I don’t know. It is one of these things. Somebody might ask the question: Why do you need a Court of Appeal? Why? You have a provincial court, you have a superior court and you have the Supreme Court of Canada. Why do you need a Court of Appeal? The Court of Appeal only deals with transcripts. The Court of Appeal shows deference to the lower court and then makes a judgment on the law.
Why do you need the Court of Appeal? You need it as the final judgment in a province. Superior Court, the authority in the province, is the Court of Appeal. That’s it. That’s why you need the Senate for that final check.
I don’t know if anybody has ever kept a record of this, but we have left bills on the Order Paper how many times? How many times did we turn around and say this bill would shock the conscience of the community, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute? And what did we do? We left it on the Order Paper. These are mainly, of course, private members’ bills; they’re not government bills that sweep through the Commons and then end up in the Senate, and we have to make a judgment on them.
To answer your question, without the Senate, without that examination in committee, and without the excellent senators that we have — and I have noticed over a period of time that the multiplicity of references signifies that the quality of our senators has been constantly going up as we have gone on. You can take it from me, from reading case law, that right now we have perhaps the best group of senators we have ever had in this institution.
(On motion of Senator Fraser, debate adjourned.)
Contacting Members of the House of Commons
Mail can be sent postage-free to any Member at the following address:
Name of Member of Parliament
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
All Members can be e-mailed. The standard format is firstname.lastname@parl.gc.ca.
Example: The e-mail address for John Smith is john.smith@parl.gc.ca.
E-mail Prime Minister Justin Trudeau here.
For a complete list of Members of Parliament, click here.
Contacting Senators
Mail may be sent postage-free to any senator at the following address:
Name of Senator
The Senate of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1A 0A4
Not all Senators have email addresses. For those who do, the standard format is the first five letters of the last name followed by the first letter of the first name, followed by @sen.parl.gc.ca.
Example: The e-mail address for Senator Jane Johnson is johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca.
For a complete list of Senators, click here.