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.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I would vote for this motion without the two days. That's a friendly amendment, but if the conservatives want to move this with a two-day limit on the study of palliative care, I will vote against the motion, and then we'll move it again without one.
I'm happy to have moved an amendment to say, go with the palliative care motion as I've drafted it, and don't put any two-day limit on it.
February 19th, 2020 / 4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to the third notice of motion I tabled, which concerns palliative care. The palliative care issue has been around for at least 50 years. I am thinking about how I could insert this in a subamendment. By the way, I'm not doing indirectly what I cannot do directly; I'm still talking about the amendment and the subamendment.
It has always been said that palliative care is the answer to dying with dignity. For a long time we said that, until the day when palliative care and what was then called euthanasia, or medical assistance in dying, were no longer considered to be mutually exclusive. From the moment Quebec, in terms of legislation, considered that palliative care and its legislation on end-of-life care could eventually include the emergence of a request for medical assistance in dying in palliative care, there was no longer any need to change the Criminal Code.
The current problem is related to Justice Beaudoin's decision. We are going to have to go beyond the end-of-life issue. Quebec had to remove the notion of end of life as a necessary condition for access to the medical assistance service for dying. When I hear the arguments of the proponents of palliative care, their main concern is the accessibility and availability of palliative care units. The system being what it is, they fear that it will eventually push people to seek medical help to die because we are unable, as a society, to provide palliative care. That is what I am hearing.
However, if we want to raise the issue of the accessibility and availability of palliative care, which seems to me to be the lowest common denominator when we claim, as a society, to want everyone to be able to die with dignity, we must first take into account the prerogatives of each of the territories, each of the provinces and Quebec, for that matter. However, we will also have to compare ourselves to other countries. That is why I find the idea of a comparative study between Canada and all the countries that offer palliative care and physician-assisted dying services in terms of accessibility and availability of such care interesting. It seems to me that by putting together this information and listening to experts, we would have a more comprehensive study.
So, only two meetings to deal strictly with this doesn't seem like very much to me. However, and I am not doing indirectly what I cannot do directly, the reason I have separated my three motions is that I wanted us to be able to focus our work and avoid having studies that go beyond the committee's mandate and the number of meetings it is able to hold.
In addition, there is a committee that will eventually have to deal with this issue. On March 12, we had to comply with Justice Beaudoin's decision. We are going to do so in June, but in the meantime, as part of our studies, can we help the committee that will be responsible for amending the act and that will have to navigate through the challenges it will encounter, given the deadline?
I saw the Standing Committee on Health as a complementary committee to this committee that has not yet been formed. The Standing Committee on Health could work on aspects of the prescription given to us by Justice Beaudouin's decision, particularly with regard to assisted suicide for physiologically degenerative diseases. We're not talking about mental illness or cognitive degenerative diseases here at all.
What is the situation in countries where both types of care are offered? What about access to a dignified death? That is the challenge facing our western societies and those that offer both types of services. Do we provide real access? Is there real availability? Dying with dignity means having access to this service.
I have pleaded my case. I thought my notice of motion was supplemental. I would be open to it being related to what is already being proposed and that we would take the time to word something together. That would save time, rather than proceeding by way of subamendments, amendments and motions.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
It would be good to find wording that takes all of our concerns into account. It would be worthwhile to take five minutes to hear from each other and put forward a single amendment, with the help of the clerk.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
If you would like to suspend the meeting, it's not debatable. You just have to clarify that you want to do that.
I have in my hand some text that the analysts have suggested to bring your motion into this motion, which could be moved as an amendment at the appropriate time.
Mr. Kitchen is next on the list, and then Ms. Jansen and Mr. Davies.
Mr. Davies did not move an amendment about removing the time limitation, as far as I'm concerned. That's where we stand right now. We're still talking about the original motion, which was moved by Ms. Jansen.
I have four people on my list here. Let's see where we're going.
Did you want to suspend?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
NDP
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The suspension would give us time to talk amongst ourselves and come up with different wording and so forth.
Who's in favour of a short suspension?
4:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm calling the meeting back to order.
I understand that we've had some productive discussions on the sidelines.
Next on the speaking list is Mr. Kitchen.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Chair, I ask for unanimous consent to withdraw my motion.
I'm sorry, Ms. Jansen will do that, and then I'll respond.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw the motion?
(Motion withdrawn)
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I would like to put forward another motion:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study on palliative care in Canada; that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee request that the Government table a comprehensive response to the report.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That is essentially motion number six that Mr. Davies originally proposed.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The discussion is now on the new motion, which is as Mr. Davies originally proposed it.
Monsieur Thériault.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
I'm not sure I understood correctly.
Could you repeat? I don't know if the interpretation was correct. I heard the word “gouvernement”.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That's motion number six that Mr. Davies originally tabled, and you should have it in both French and English.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That's what was just moved by Mr. Kitchen: Mr. Davies' motion number six. The previous motion, which was a modified version of that, has been withdrawn.
Now it is Mr. Davies' motion, without a time limit, just as it was when he sent it to all of us.
