Thank you.
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.
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.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
But you'd have to do it now because we're at this line. So you'd have to do it right after.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Yes, if this amendment is defeated, then we're on this line and that would be, I believe, the place that you would put forward any amendment you had but you'd have to write it out and give it to the clerk.
Mr. Fraser.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I agree with what Mr. Rankin said and I remember that testimony.
With regard to it being on a reasonableness standard, it is an objective standard, which is a higher standard obviously than the subjective. With regard to criminality, exempting this person doesn't mean there's no sanction involved. Obviously there are sanctions later on in the bill that deal with the fact that somebody who maybe had a reasonable but mistaken belief who didn't follow the criteria set out in this bill wouldn't be held to account.
I believe that this amendment is unnecessary and goes against the spirit of the bill and I won't be voting for it.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Monsieur Genuis, I don't think there are any more intervenors. Would you like to close?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I want to respond to what Mr. McKinnon said. What you're saying makes perfect sense, but that's not what the clause says. If the clause specified that it was only those who were assisting, but not the actual physician who was responsible for doing it.... The act is designed such that the person who approves it is the one who's doing it. I think that person should be the one responsible and making sure.
With respect to the comment about other sanctions, I don't think that's sufficient, proportionate, or satisfying to the victim. If somebody kills a member of your family, and that member of your family isn't consenting, the criteria isn't met. I don't think saying that person is going to be unable to practice medicine for the next year and a half is a sufficient sanction.
If you take the life of a person who does not consent, and who does not meet the criteria, we can't walk away from proportionate sanctions for taking life. That's the only way to ensure the continuing sanctity of medical environments in which people feel safe. We have a narrowly defined exception, but we can't allow lives to be taken outside of those narrowly defined exceptions.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're going to move to the next one, which is CPC-3. CPC-3 is also from Mr. Genuis, so will somebody put it forward for the purpose that we can debate it?
Thank you, Mr. Falk.
Mr. Genuis.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
With respect to this, I think the court decision was clear that it created a right for an individual to avoid prosecution, but it does not confer a positive right for an individual to have death inflicted on them. I think that is a very important distinction, because a right for a person to have death inflicted on them could be further developed and inferred in all kinds of different contexts beyond what, I think, is the intended narrow scope of this legislation.
Some of the discussion already around this has implied there is a charter right to this. There is clearly an established charter right by the court decision to avoid prosecution, but this is something distinct from a right to die, in any case. I think this clarification is important in terms of the context we're operating under.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any debate on the amendment?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're going to move to CPC-3.1.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you.
Mr. Rankin raised the question of a different amendment. Mr. Rankin, we've now gone through all the amendments on clause 2. If you or anyone else has another amendment on clause 2, now is the time you have to put it forward, or else we have to move to the vote on clause 2, and then there's no further possibility to put forward amendments on clause 2.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I have it in writing.
It came up as a consequence of this.
Can I say it now?
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I move that clause 2 be amended such that line 7 on page 3 be replaced with the following: “as an honest, but mistaken belief about any fact that”.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I rule that as receivable as an amendment.
Mr. Rankin, do you want to speak to your amendment?
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I think those on the committee who were able to hear the testimony of the criminal lawyers' defence association might have, like myself, been compelled to conclude it would be an improvement, given the nature of the criminal law we're dealing with. We're talking about a defence to a crime of culpable homicide, or first-degree murder. They were persuasive in suggesting that a subjective foundation—namely, an honest belief—was preferable in the circumstances, and that's what motivates my proposed amendment.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
For those who do not understand the proposal, of which we still have no copy, in French, we would be replacing the term “raisonnable” with the term “honnête” on line 7. I'm not sure whether the member will find a different translation. I think it will probably be “honnête”.
It's only reasonable for people to say that they want to see this in writing. Is there anybody who feels they need to see reasonable changed to honest in writing before we proceed to debate?
4:50 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Joanne Klineberg Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I would like to provide the committee with a little bit of context that may be of use with regard to the provisions on self-defence, which actually were amended by Parliament just a few years ago. It's the one defence, actually, at present, that can be invoked when a person is charged with murder.
It speaks of a person having a reasonable perception that they are being assaulted or threatened. In other words, mistakes in terms of the application of self-defence or the use of force in self-defence, even killing a person in self-defence, will only be available if those mistakes were reasonable in the circumstances.
Just to have a little bit of context, in common law, it's the courts that told us that, when interpreting the old self-defence provisions in the context of exculpatory claims, mistakes should be reasonable ones. In the context of interpreting an offence itself—so where an offence includes a mental element—a mistake that's unreasonable would still negate the mental element for the crime and result in the person not being convicted. But where it's an exculpatory claim, which is really society's way of saying this was criminal, but not notwithstanding that it was criminal, we wish to give you an excuse so you won't be convicted. The courts have, on the whole, tended to say—and this is what's reflected in the self-defence provisions—that mistakes must be reasonable ones.
