Evidence of meeting #15 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was move.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much for the honesty.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're going to now move to CPC-10, and I'd like to advise that CPC-10 and CPC-11 have a conflict. If CPC-10 is adopted, CPC-11 would fall.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
May I just get a clarification on that? Although the wording on Mr. Kmiec's amendment overlaps with the wording of my proposed amendment, if I have this right, he doesn't modify the section I'm seeking to modify.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
My ruling would be you're both modifying line 18, and if his amendment is accepted, you'd add the word “written” into 18; which would then make your amendment to line 18 not receivable anymore.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Okay. I suppose he could change his amendment to be just—
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
He could, or he could try to incorporate your point into his amendment. That's my ruling for the moment.
Mr. Kmiec.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
This amendment is defining the mode under which consent is provided. That's all I'm doing. In section (e) it's “written”, in section (f) it's “recorded”. It just brings it into more consistency with section 241.31. With the regulations the Minister of Health can define how information is collected.
This would give greater certainty that after the fact there's a means to double-check whether written consent or informed consent was provided, so we don't fall into the situation where in some other jurisdictions, which do have medical assistance in dying, that after the fact they found situations where a person had not consented to the procedure being done.
This is just to create consistency between different sections of this act.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I have some concerns with the request being recorded, as I think it may overstep boundaries of privacy, so I am not supportive of this amendment.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any further discussion?
Not hearing any, Mr. Kmiec, do you want to close in any way?
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
To address Ms. Khalid's point, the minister has the power to determine how information is released thereafter. In fact, this is stated later in the act, but for this type of information, obviously, doctor-patient confidentiality would apply. I don't see a situation where it would be released.
The privacy concerns are covered by that doctor-patient situation, so I don't think there's any issue there. That would be my only point.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we can move to Mr. Genuis' amendment, CPC-11.
Mr. Falk, will you move it? Okay.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
This adds “and uncoerced consent”. To some extent that's implied, but I think it's one of these for-greater-certainty things, to ensure that those who are checking the situation against the criteria are aware of it, and putting a strong emphasis on ensuring there is no coercion going on.
I don't imagine there's anything in here that members would find particularly objectionable, and it would give you the chance to include a Conservative amendment.
6:55 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
As much as I would like to do that, Chair, I would worry about a situation where, in other sections, we leave it as merely “consent”. Then people would say, “That must be coerced consent”, which frankly is a contradiction in terms.
Putting the word “uncoerced” here would add nothing, and would only create uncertainty elsewhere. For that reason I can't support this.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I completely agree with Mr. Rankin. There's no such thing as valid consent that is coerced. It's meaningless and could perhaps cause problems with understanding other sections.
For that reason, I don't see why we would make that amendment.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Proposed paragraph 241.2(1)(d) just prior to that says that the decision was not made as a result of external pressure, so to me it seems redundant as well.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
(Amendment withdrawn [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we will move to CPC-12.
Mr. Cooper.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
This amendment simply provides that a person who is suffering from an underlying mental health challenge undergo a psychiatric assessment to determine their capacity to give informed consent.
The body of evidence, both before the justice committee and the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying indicates that physicians and nurse practitioners may have the ability to diagnose an underlying mental health challenge, but to undertake something that is more complex, such as determining the capacity to consent in the context of physician-assisted dying, someone with further training such as a psychiatrist is required. What's more, the evidence before the justice committee was that psychiatrists are precisely equipped and trained to make this type of assessment.
It's a very straightforward amendment to protect the group of persons who are perhaps the most vulnerable of any, those who suffer from underlying mental health challenges.
