Evidence of meeting #9 for Justice and Human Rights in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thanks, Mr. Cooper.
At this time we will call the question on CPC-5.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll now move to NDP-2.
Mr. Garrison, if you would like to move that amendment, go ahead, sir.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Madam Chair, I'm not sure if I'm the only one—perhaps it's my Internet connection—but I'm having trouble with your audio cutting in and out.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
It's just cut out again....
I'm assuming you asked me to move the motion.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
I do hear you quite clearly and well.
As you move your amendment, we'll try to see if we can confirm that our technical issues are resolved.
Go ahead, Mr. Garrison.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
NDP-2 is in essence a technical or housekeeping kind of amendment. It does not assert anything new...into the bill. The bill includes a requirement for additional expertise to be consulted in track two. Whether or not that is an essential safeguard, I don't wish to debate at this point, but it doesn't state clearly who needs to consult and with whom in this period. My amendment is purely an attempt to clarify the language, to make it clear that if the assessors do not have the expertise they need, one of them needs to consult with someone who has that expertise.
I understand that my attempt to clarify the language can be further clarified. I believe government members may wish to substitute some additional language. This is simply about making things clear in terms of the responsibility to consult additional expertise.
Thank you.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I've had the occasion to speak with Mr. Garrison about this proposed amendment. I believe it derives from some of the evidence that we heard about the accessibility of track two when someone is living in rural or more remote communities. I think the intent is sound. We had to think about this on our side of the House and we identified a few concerns, such as the notion of the term “person who has that expertise”. We would endeavour to have that person be named as a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner. It is specifically providing some clarity in that regard.
Apropos of that, I have suggested some altered language, which I believe Mr. Garrison has seen and approves of. I sent that language in advance to the clerk. I believe he is circulating it to everyone in the group.
I can read what we are suggesting, to sort of get at what Mr. Garrison is suggesting. This would be a friendly amendment to NDP-2.
The paragraph (e) would read:
(e) ensure that another medical practitioner or nurse practitioner has provided a written opinion confirming that the person meets all of the criteria set out in subsection (1);
Then a new subparagraph (e)(i) would be inserted:
(e.1) if neither they nor the other medical practitioner or nurse practitioner referred to in paragraph (e) has expertise in the condition that is causing the person’s suffering, ensure that they or the other medical practitioner or nurse practitioner consult with a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner who has that expertise or consult with such a practitioner and share the results of that consultation with the other practitioner referred to in paragraph (e);
I appreciate that the language is a bit wordy, but it has been sent to the clerk and I believe he has circulated it to the members of the committee.
That would be the proposed friendly amendment to NDP-2.
Thank you.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you for that, Mr. Virani.
Let me just confirm with Mr. Clerk if that has been circulated.
12:40 p.m.
The Clerk
Unless it's currently sitting in my out-box, it should arrive any second.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Can members confirm that they've received the written amendments? I see thumbs up from all members.
I don't have anybody on the speakers list at this time.
Mr. Garrison, do you accept these friendly amendments? Yes?
Then we'll call the vote at this time.
No, go ahead first, Mr. Garrison.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Sorry, Madam Chair, something is continually malfunctioning here.
Yes, I do. I believe it achieves the same goal as my original amendment, but with even clearer language.
Thank you.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Madam Chair, the departmental officials have been patiently with us for over two hours now. Do they have any thoughts on what this amendment achieves?
Maybe just turn it over to the departmental officials in case they want to weigh in on this.
12:40 p.m.
Joanne Klineberg Acting General Counsel, Department of Justice
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Unfortunately, while I was able to hear the first part of it, I was not able to hear all of it. If you could read it again, that would assist my being able to help clarify what it does.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
It may be more efficacious if the clerk emailed it to you, Ms. Klineberg.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
It's trying to ensure that the provider is the one who consults, not the second person, and it's providing some clarity that the person who is named with the expertise is a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner.
If you want, I can read it again.
12:40 p.m.
Acting General Counsel, Department of Justice
If you could read it one more time, that would be great.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Acting General Counsel, Department of Justice
Yes, if you wouldn't mind. I will take notes.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Okay.
The new paragraph (e) would read:
(e) ensure that another medical practitioner or nurse practitioner has provided a written opinion confirming that the person meets all of the criteria set out in subsection (1);
Then the new subparagraph (e)(i) reads:
(e.1) if neither they nor the other medical practitioner or nurse practitioner referred to in paragraph (e) has expertise in the condition that is causing the person’s suffering, ensure that they or the other medical practitioner or nurse practitioner consult with a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner who has that expertise or consult with such a practitioner and share the results of that consultation with the other practitioner referred to in paragraph (e);
That's all.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you, Mr. Virani.
I'm also going to ask the department to take a look at the French version. My understanding is that the proposed text has been emailed to you, so you should have access to it. Could you also comment on whether the French version is in order?
12:40 p.m.
Acting General Counsel, Department of Justice
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm really only looking at subparagraph (e)(i). I think the wording for the revised paragraph (e), which is the requirement to obtain a second assessment, is identical to what's currently in the Criminal Code, so I think that is fine.
If I look at the proposed new subparagraph (e)(i), it appears to be saying that the “they” would normally be referring to the MAID provider. All of the safeguards are directed at the MAID provider personally, so where we see “they”, we would read that as the MAID provider.
It appears to be saying that if neither “they”, who is the MAID provider, nor the second assessor has the expertise, “they”—being the MAID provider—or the other provider would consult with a medical practitioner who has that expertise.
Then there is an alternative to that, which is that “they”, the MAID provider, would consult and then share the results with the practitioner referred to in paragraph (e), who is the second assessor, so I'm not sure there is....
It appears as though the first part of proposed subparagraph (e)(i) is saying that either of the two assessors could consult with the expert. Then as an alternative, the MAID provider can consult with the expert and then share the results. There's perhaps a little bit of a duplication.
If it is the second MAID assessor who does the consulting, it's not clear whether they would have the obligation to share the results with the MAID provider with this wording.
If the first “or” were converted into an “and”, then it would be alternative requirements that either the two providers together would consult with the practitioner, or the MAID provider could consult and share the results with the second assessor. If it's an “and” at the beginning, there's a bit of repetition, and not a 100% clarity as to when there would be an obligation to share the results.