I see.
Evidence of meeting #4 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #4 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We couldn't distribute the document because it was in English only. If we have the unanimous consent of the committee, we can distribute it in that form.
Do we have unanimous consent to distribute it in English only?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
The point is to link both notices of motion. The amendment reads as follows:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a comparative study of Canada and countries where palliative care and assisted dying are offered, with a particular focus on availability and accessibility.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
An amendment needs to say where its proposed text would go in the existing motion, or that we're removing certain words and replacing them with other words, or to that effect.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Very good. So we need to replace “on palliative care in Canada” with “undertake a comparative study of Canada and countries where palliative care and assisted dying are offered, with a particular focus on availability and accessibility.”
The words “that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House” remain unchanged. We simply need to add the part I just read.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The discussion now is on Mr. Thériault's amendment.
Is there any discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Van Bynen.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
For clarification, my understanding is that the assisted dying legislation is up for review imminently, as a result of a five-year review, and that it will undertaken either by this committee and/or the justice committee.
Is that correct, that it might come on our agenda in future without the need for this?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
One of us, either the justice or our committee, will likely get that study to do. Whether or not it encompasses palliative care is a moot point, at this point.
In any event, we have this amendment before us.
Is there any discussion on Mr. Thériault's amendment?
Seeing none, we'll vote.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
[Technical difficulty—Editor] that would carry, because if you look at a lot of our current legislation, we actually already say.... For instance, the 2018 framework for palliative care lays out that palliative care neither hastens nor postpones death. Palliative care doesn't include MAID. I don't know how we can study this together, as if it's the same thing.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
The motion is saying that we're going to study them at the same time, whereas palliative care doesn't actually include MAID. It's “neither to hasten or postpone death”. It also says in the final report that a request for physician-assisted death can't be truly voluntary if the option of proper palliative care is not available to alleviate the person’s suffering.
So I'm confused as to how that passed.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Even if a study is conducted, I suggest that we try, now and during the work to amend the act, to get a clearer picture. The current problem is that palliative care and physician assisted dying are being pitted against each other. There are some people who believe that assisted dying is the only way to die with dignity. Others say that it cannot solve all the end-of-life problems and that sometimes we may have to offer medical help to die.
We need to know how countries that manage both options provide accessibility and availability. How does it work in those countries? That will be our reality, and that has been the case since Bill C-14, by the way, and it has been the case in Quebec since 2016. How is it in all countries that offer both services? How is palliative care accessible and available? We must invite witnesses and not pit the two realities against each other. We have to make sure that we can compare ourselves to others after a few years of implementation, because Bill C-14 has already been passed. This led to the decision of Justice Beaudoin, who told us that we had not done our job properly because people had to go to court to get access to this service. For my part, I do not want us to just talk about medically assisted dying, we need to talk about palliative care and how a country that provides both services deals with the issues of accessibility and availability.
If we keep to ourselves, we won't have any clues. I think our thinking needs to be informed. The committee is going to be very busy given the deadlines that the court has given. We have asked for a four-month extension, and by June we will have to have drafted legislation that will deal with assisted suicide for people with physiologically degenerative diseases. There is another factor to consider: some people will want to file advance directives, others will want to do the same in the Alzheimer's cases. In short, we too must have the opportunity to conduct studies that can provide food for thought and enlighten legislators.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will not have time to do everything. Our committee could do complementary work. That is what I am aiming for first with this notice of motion. I hope I've made myself clear.
We are aware that the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will include a study of the act. However, before we arrive at an amended version of the act in June, can we ensure that we can pass the best legislation by further informing the debate through our complementary work? If we, as legislators, do not do our work well, it is possible that we may subsequently miss situations, as happened in the case of Bill C-14. Then there will be people who will have to go to court to assert their rights.
Finally, do not forget that in Justice Beaudoin's decision, she said that Bill C-14 infringed on the right to life of Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon. Why did she say that? Because they were being forced to seek medical aid in dying before they crossed the threshold of intolerability. People want to live as long as possible and, to be absolutely certain that they will have access to it, they shorten their lives. That is what the Beaudoin judgment said. The government did not challenge it, nor did the Government of Quebec—no one challenged it. These are not small issues, and we have very little time to do the work. It is up to the Standing Committee on Health to look at these issues, and we have very little time to do this work that will complement the work of the legislators, who, may I reiterate, will have to introduce a bill in June.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
If you look at the documents, you'll see the things that have been suggested that need to be done: training programs for health care professionals regarding palliative care, public awareness programs, volunteer community stakeholder support programs, research funding programs.... All of these things need to be looked at.
I don't know how we're going to manage now to add this other thing in there. I'll just leave it at that.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
