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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I judge it receivable even though I also thought it was a strange way.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
It was on the basis of advice, so that's the reason it was done this way. I would have wanted to have a stand-alone advance request provision, but because we were working with an existing bill, you'll understand that we were told no other way but to do it.
This issue is the advance request issue. I was proud to be a member of the Senate-House committee. We spent an awful long time hearing a lot of witnesses on this issue. We as a committee, with three exceptions, the Conservative members of Parliament on that committee, but not I should note the Conservative senators, the Liberal senators, the NDP, and Liberal members all supported the idea of advance request.
The group Dying With Dignity claimed, through polling they have done, that the vast majority of Canadians want and expect our committee to address this issue. If we believe in patient-centred health care, this is a clear example of it.
At community meetings I've held in different provinces of the country, the first issue that comes up where people seem to be most engaged is this issue. There's a palpable desire to deal with the situation where people have been given a diagnosis, not when they're healthy, that they are going to have Alzheimer's, and they can identify in advance the time at which they would like to avail themselves of physician-assisted, or medical aid in dying.
That is the common denominator in so much. We've heard many stories told to our committees, both here and at the Senate-House committee, of the terrible tragedies where people have not been able to do that despite their wishes. This is a natural progression from do-not-resuscitate orders and living wills, and so forth. Parliament is mature enough to do what the vast majority of Canadians wish us to do.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Mr. Rankin.
I wish to note because I promised to provide clarity when one amendment would mean other amendments could no longer come forward.
NDP-1 has line conflicts with CPC-10 and CPC-11. If NDP-1 is adopted, CPC-10 and CPC-11 would fall because those would conflict with lines amended in NDP-1. I'm going to keep everybody in the loop on that one when I can find it.
Mr. Cooper.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I, with respect to Mr. Rankin, would oppose this particular amendment. The Supreme Court was clear in its decision that one of the criterion for medical assistance in dying is that one gives fair clear consent. I believe that by clear consent the Supreme Court was contemplating contemporaneous consent.
This motion seems to conflate, on the one hand, the inability to give instructions with the ability to change one's mind. It sets a very dangerous precedent. I would note that in the province of Quebec, which we've been reminded studied Bill 52 for six years, in three national assemblies, three Quebec governments, the advance directives were in the initial legislation, but they were withdrawn on the basis that the risks could not be sufficiently mitigated.
There was a clear body of evidence before the special joint committee and evidence before this committee that there are inherent risks involved. The government, in the legislation, has said that there may be an opportunity. In fact, the government's intention is to study this further.
I'm not opposed to studying any issue further, but I believe that given the time in which Parliament needs to pass legalisation and having regard for the inherent risks that have been identified and the underlying complexities involved in advance directives, it would not be responsible to amend the legislation at this time to include advance directives.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
While I appreciate very much the comments by Mr. Rankin, I would note as well that the Liberal caucus will be putting forward a motion later on dealing with independent review. That's in the package now, to have an independent review no later than 180 days after the day on which this act receives royal assent. That's a change from what had previously been anticipated.
I tend to agree that we need more study on this. We need to hear from and consult broadly with all Canadians to make sure that we get this right. For that reason, I cannot support this amendment at this time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Rankin, would you like to close?
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
To Mr. Cooper, I agree that the issue of clear consent was very much front and centre of the Supreme Court's decision; however, I don't think there was any effort to limit it to contemporaneous consent. As long as we're legislators, I think it's certainly open to us to do what other countries have done.
Secondly, on the point of changing your mind, my objective would be to allow that as long as the person is competent—to be able to do that at any time.
Lastly, Quebec's experience is certainly not determinative of what's open to us. I agree with the point that was made. They did decide not to proceed on that in the end. That, of course, doesn't mean it's not open to us. I note that the provincial-territorial task force that studied this in detail spoke to the need of advance requests in their proposals.
I think the time has come. I think Canadians are certainly ready and will be very disappointed if this committee decides to pass it to another time, to another review, when we could do the job now.
Liberal
Ahmed Hussen Liberal York South—Weston, ON
I think there is only one country in the world that has advance directives in its law. Despite the fact that there are many countries that allow for medical assistance in dying, only one country has moved on this. It goes to show you how careful many countries in the world are with respect to advance directives. It think it's incumbent upon us to move slowly on this to make sure we get it right.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Actually, I think there are only four countries plus four U.S. states right now, so it's not that many. Only the Netherlands has advance directives. But it's a good point.
Thank you very much, Mr. Hussen.
Thank you very much, Mr. Rankin. It's a very important issue that we at least deal with and have the debate on.
I'm not hearing any more debate.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we will move to CPC-8.
I promised to point out any problems. I will provide explanations in this case.
Amendment CPC-8 conflicts with amendment BQ-2. If amendment CPC-8 is adopted, Bloc Québécois' amendment cannot be moved. I did not receive that amendment beforehand.
There is another problem. Amendment CPC-8 conflicts with amendment CPC-8.1. If CPC-8 is adopted, CPC-8.1 cannot be moved.
We go in the order that they were received. CPC-8 came first. I'm going to ask one of the members of the committee to please propose it, and then Mr. Viersen to speak to it.
Thank you, Mr. Falk.
Mr. Viersen.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I propose that we change the words “grievous medical condition” to “terminal medical condition” in that I'm looking to protect vulnerable people with disabilities. Often, if you suffer from a disability, this is a grievous condition, but it's not necessarily terminal. I don't think it should be.... We've heard evidence from members from the disability community saying they are concerned about the direction that this is going in. I'd like to reassure them and say this will be available only to people who have a terminal medical condition. That is the impetus for this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
I think you meant to say you're proposing to replace the word “irremediable”, not “grievous”.
Conservative
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
The Supreme Court was clear, not only in its decision in Carter, but in the transcript we received from Mr. Arvay on the extension application. They were clear that it was not limited to individuals with a terminal condition, so I'm voting against it.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
With respect to Mr. Bittle, the Supreme Court of Canada made no such pronouncement. There was simply a question posed by a judge in a transcript that was not part of the decision in any way. You can interpret the Supreme Court decision as to whether or not it would preclude terminability, but the Supreme Court never specifically addressed that.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
I said before that when we err, we should rather err on the side of caution to begin with. The comment was made by one of the witnesses at committee that the Supreme Court gave us an area like this, and what part of this legislation does is reduces it to this. Well, when I tell my child to go in the backyard and play, if he chooses to play in one corner of the backyard, he's still being completely compliant and completely obedient. If we narrow that window from what the Supreme Court has said we can do, there's nothing wrong with that. This just gives it much more clear definition. I support this. I think we should define it very clearly that it needs to be terminal.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I don't accept the analogy. We have a unanimous Supreme Court telling us that the yard is this big. We don't now say that the yard is this big. We can't take away from what people who won that hard-fought battle achieved in their victory. To take this and limit it to terminability would be to fly in the face of the unanimous Supreme Court judgment. Indeed, as Mr. Bittle said, it would fly in the face of what the judge specifically said in the extension application, where she said we are not limiting it to terminability. We have no right to do this, in my judgment, if we are to be faithful to the Supreme Court and to the rule of law.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Are there any further comments?
I'm going to go back to Mr. Viersen to close.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
This amendment came out of a wish to protect the vulnerable, specifically the disability community. I will make that argument again, and hope for this amendment to pass.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We're going to put this amendment to a vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
May I suggest we take a short health break?