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.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
What you're suggesting is to go back to the original study, which I think we'd need unanimous consent to do, and have a second study that studies the comparatives.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
I thank you for your advice. I just needed clarification.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with Mr. Davies and his comments on the subject. I'm not going to put words in someone else's mouth about who does or does not support or care about MAID. This discussion is about palliative care. I don't appreciate someone's saying that I don't want to discuss the issue of MAID.
The point here is to deal with this motion. By the amendment sort of suggesting that we take MAID out of this motion, it basically goes back to the original motion that we voted in support of putting it in. Either you defeat this motion and the new one gets put forward, because procedurally that's how things have to be done.... We can't just keep talking about it. We need to follow procedures the way it should have been done. That's my comment.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
If that's what the motion means, which is that we're just studying palliative care but we can do a comparative study of other countries that have palliative care and assisted dying offered together—
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
—that makes me feel better, except for this.... I disagree with my friend Mr. Thériault when he said that it's—I can't remember what he suggested—ludicrous or whatever to study other countries. You could find other countries that have superb palliative care systems and that don't have MAID. As a matter of fact, we just did some quick research. Now, I may be wrong, because it was just quick—
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
There are only three countries in the world that have both MAID and palliative care. Those are the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. Apparently there's the Australian state of Victoria, and there are nine U.S. states and D.C. itself. We just did a quick survey, and those are the only places in the world that have both palliative care and MAID.
Is it really our intention to restrict our study of palliative care just to those jurisdictions? If we find out that Finland has a superb palliative care system but no MAID, are we not going to pay attention and look at that?
This is an attempt to blur together two issues that are different and discrete.
If you put MAID aside for a moment, I think Canada and Canadians want a superb palliative care system. End-of-life care and making sure that every Canadian can get access to quality, gold standard palliative care exists whether you have MAID or not. MAID is the process of choosing to end one's life and includes all of the considerations that go into that process once you decide to do it. It involves all sorts of other considerations, as we know—mature minors, mental health, advance directives.
I'm going to emphasize again that this issue was very well canvassed and well debated in the last Parliament, because our Parliament had to debate it after the Supreme Court struck down and gave Parliament a certain amount of time to enact legislation, which we did.
With great respect to Mr. Thériault, I don't think we have to restrict ourselves only to those countries that have palliative care and MAID in order to understand best practices of palliative care. I think we would be unduly restricting ourselves.
Now, particularly since I now know we're not studying MAID but simply studying palliative care, why would we want to restrict ourselves just to countries that have MAID? By the way, even their MAID systems are not necessarily the same as ours; there are quite significant differences in the way they do it, in the consent processes. I'm not even sure how helpful a comparison.... The mere fact that a country such as Luxembourg has MAID and has palliative care doesn't automatically make it an excellent comparator for Canada.
If it's the will of the committee and of Mr. Thériault to restrict us just to those jurisdictions, so be it. I just don't think that's wise.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The clerk has informed me that what I read wasn't exactly what Mr. Thériault had said in French. I would ask Mr. Thériault once again to read the full text of the motion as amended so that we can listen to the....
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chairman, I can accede to Mr. Powlowski's request, but I can also withdraw my motion, if you like.
I put this motion forward because there will be a committee to look at the physician-assisted dying act and expand it. I thought we were not going to deal with that. What that committee will not have time to do is to deal with palliative care.
If you follow me, Mr. Chairman, that's why I did it that way. I wanted our work to be complementary. I have two other motions that touch on other areas, such as the expansion of medical aid for dying, which I think this committee will have difficulty dealing with.
You want a consensus and it looks like it's going to be too complicated. I withdraw my motion, that's okay. Draft the wording you want and we'll ask the questions in due course. I'm capable of being a team player. I have no objection to us moving on. I will speak at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in due course.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Thériault.
We can't just withdraw the motion because it has already been accepted by the committee. What we'll have to do is ask for the unanimous consent of the committee to go back to the original motion.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think you're suggesting is that we go back to the original motion as proposed by Mr. Davies and Dr. Kitchen.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
I moved an amendment. I can withdraw it and we can deal with Mr. Kitchen's motion. I'll put my questions to the committee that's going to be formed.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The amendment was passed, so we have to have unanimous consent to withdraw it.
Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and go back to the original motion?
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
We could also have defeated the motion and continued the discussion, but I prefer to be a team player. I see it will be defeated anyway. We are not going to waste any time. I withdraw it, and let us move on.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Is it possible that we deal with the other portion that's being proposed as a separate item, along with all the other items that we'll give some consideration to in the future?
If this amendment is withdrawn, I'm suggesting in the interest of compromise that the amendment be considered separately amongst all the other items that we will be prioritizing as a committee.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That would be an option for the committee to pursue.
The question before the committee at this moment is whether we have unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment of Mr. Thériault and go back to the original motion as proposed by Dr. Kitchen.
