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.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
That's a subamendment. The debate will then begin on the subamendment proposed by Mr. Rankin.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I realize the problem and I appreciate that.
What I'm wondering is if the wording wouldn't make more sense, since it's “social worker” that you're significantly concerned with, and rightly so, if maybe we put that at the beginning and then say “or” and include all of the rest.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
“No social worker or psychologist, psychiatrist, therapist or other health care professional.”
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I am perfectly happy, but I understand the motion went forward. Am I allowed to accept that as the new motion without going through a subamendment process?
5:15 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
“No social worker or psychologist, psychiatrist, therapist, or other health care professional commits an offence if they provide information”, and you have the rest of the words—
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
May 9th, 2016 / 5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I support the objective of the amendment. I guess there's just one point of clarification, Mr. Fraser. In terms of “health care professional”, I presume that would encompass the medical practitioner and nurse practitioner.
Just to put my comment in context, when I looked at Mr. Thériault's proposed amendment, it's quite similar inasmuch as it provides that no medical practitioner or nurse practitioner commits an offence for providing information in relation to medical assistance in dying. I voted against it on the basis that your amendment, which was after, seemed to be more expansive to take into account that there may be others who need to be covered. I just want to make sure that we're covering everyone who falls within the parameters of providing information to persons who are seeking information.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Can I ask, though, given our friendly amendment—moving through like this—why don't we say “therapist, medical practitioner, nursing practitioner, or other health care provider”. However it was worded, we would just add in those words so that Mr. Cooper feels comfortable, too.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Yes, I thought it would already have been covered, but for information purposes, providing “a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner”, that's what you're looking at?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I'm just thinking that those two terms should be incorporated for consistency so there is no ambiguity as to who we're talking about.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Yes, I have no problem with that.
Do you want me to read it again, then?
“No social worker or psychologist, psychiatrist, therapist, medical practitioner, or nurse practitioner, or other health care professional commits an offence if they provide information to a person on medical assistance in dying.”
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ahmed Hussen Liberal York South—Weston, ON
I would just like to get the official's view on the efficacy of this change.
5:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Well, there are a couple of things for the committee's consideration, again.
One, if we think about the exemptions that have been created for people who might aid the physician or the nurse practitioner, it was drafted to say “any person” because there might be other types of professionals. For instance, someone might actually consult a lawyer to determine how they might proceed to obtain medical assistance in dying. That wouldn't be captured.
Also, given the information I provided a few minutes ago, there is no legal possibility that the offence could be interpreted so as to.... Sorry, that was with respect to a slightly different point. But it's really not possible to interpret the criminal offences as though they would prohibit simply giving someone information about a lawful process, so for the committee's consideration for clauses like that we usually draft for greater certainty.
Finally, the definition of “medical assistance in dying”, in Bill C-14 is such that the definition itself doesn't include the eligibility criteria and the safeguards. The definition is merely a nurse practitioner or a medical practitioner who administers a substance to cause the death of a person. So the committee might wish to consider adding words like “obtaining information on the lawful provision of medical assistance in dying” so that you're not capturing other things that a physician might say that would not be within the lawful boundaries of medical assistance in dying.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Yes, could I just ask to have repeated the last part on the lawful...? What was the wording you used?
