Justice Committee on May 9th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

If I may, I would propose a friendly amendment. Proposed subsection 241.2(1) says “only if they meet all of the following criteria”. I propose that we also include “only”, just for the purpose of keeping it consistent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Where is that?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Under proposed subsection 241.2(1), it says “A person may receive medical assistance in dying only if they meet all of the following criteria”.

In proposed subsection 241.2(2), what we are proposing to amend is “A person has a grievous and irremediable”—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

You're proposing to add the word “only” to make it consistent with the top.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Sure. That's the same thing, but I appreciate the point for consistency that I prefaced in my comments, so it would make sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

It seems to me this is a drafting issue. I wonder if the officials might have a comment on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

In future, if a member of the committee asks, I will allow that. I'll allow it in this case, but I would prefer that it come from a member of the committee.

Ms. Klineberg.

[Joanne Klineberg]

To advise the committee, from a drafting perspective, we've been reassured numerous times by the legislative drafters that this is not legally necessary.

The only thing I would mention is that consideration would have to be given to the French version because if we add “only”, it makes the two English versions look quite the same, but taking care of the French translation might be a little bit more nuanced.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I can understand that. It was drafted in English and the parliamentary clerks, I assume, translated it in the way they thought.

It says the following: “graves et irrémédiables lorsqu'elle remplit tous les critères ci-après:”.

Why would that be a problem?

[Joanne Klineberg]

It doesn't match the French under 241(2)(1) that's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I understand, but the translation, in my view, does achieve the same thing. I think that's okay. In the end, if there is something that needs to be fixed in the translation, we can note that we are relying on the English and we're asking for any proposal to better translate the French.

[Joanne Klineberg]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We'll note that. If the department wants to come back and say the French needs to better reflect what the English says, we can definitely live with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

All those in favour of LIB-2?

Those opposed?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next we move to PV-2.

I'm noting that conflicts with CPC-14.1, so in the event PV-2 is adopted, CPC-14.1 cannot be moved.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There probably isn't going to be a more important debate in clause-by-clause than the one we were just having on Mr. Rankin's amendment and my attempt here, through three different amendments, to fix what's wrong here.

What's wrong here is that the draft legislation states at subclause (2) “a person has a grievous or irremediable medical condition if”. That's language from the Supreme Court.

We then purport to define the Supreme Court's unanimous decision by language that contradicts the Supreme Court decision.

Through (a), (b), and (d), the draft legislation actually contradicts the reasoning of the court and contradicts the court's conclusions.

It's disturbing that this is before us. There is no question—and I want to say this with respect to all members around the table with all the different concerns we have about an issue as important as this—that the issue is difficult.

As lawmakers we have an obligation to ensure that the legislation we put forward does not so badly depart from the logic of the Supreme Court that we bring forward legislation, which is currently, in the view of Joe Arvay who litigated on behalf of Kay Carter, actually worse than nothing.

It would be better to leave a legal situation where once the Criminal Code provisions are removed, public policy and the conduct of medically-assisted dying would be guided by the court's decision and not by this act.

I'll move the first one quickly because I have about 20 seconds left.

In my recommendation here, we would take subclause 3(a), lines 22 to 23, and remove the word “incurable.” That's basically the essence of what I'm trying to do here. It is unnecessarily and unfairly restrictive as drafted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Ms. May.

Mr. McKinnon.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

This is more in line of a question for Ms. May.

I'm wondering if the latter part of subparagraph (c) “that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable” would not suffice for this latter part of this proposed paragraph (a), “for which there's no treatment that is acceptable to them”.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I appreciate your effort to bridge a gulf here around an understanding of what the Supreme Court of Canada told us in Carter was their intention with “grievous and irremediable”. However, it's very clear that the word “incurable” goes against what the court decided.

For instance, it was not part of the decision in Carter, but in the discussion of extending the time in January, Madame Justice Karakatsanis was very clear in saying that in Carter they rejected “terminally ill”. I don't know what the definition of incurable is or if it's very different from terminally ill, which the court has very clearly said they rejected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Is there any further discussion or debate?

I'm going to go back to Ms. May to close.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I appreciate, Mr. Chair, the latitude to those of us who are pulled to committee by the motion you passed and don't have the opportunity to present it at the report stage.

I appreciate the chance to plead once again with the Liberal members of this committee to consider that passing Bill C-14 with the language that you find in subparagraph (a)—and then I'll come back to (b) and (d) on other amendments—will have the effect of passing legislation that is not charter-compliant. It will be one that does not meet the standards of section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and will create more litigation and more uncertainty instead of doing what's required of lawmakers, regardless of personal opinion or lobby efforts by groups that failed at the Supreme Court of Canada. We have a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada decision, and it's our obligation to meet its terms.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now move to CPC-14.1, which conflicts with CPC-14.2 and CPC-14.3.

Will one of the Conservative members move it so that Mr. Genuis can speak to it?

Mr. Genuis, please go ahead.