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.
5:20 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, “information on the lawful provision of medical assistance in dying”.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Did you also want to add “for greater certainty” at the beginning?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
The intention was that it was for greater certainty, because I believe it's correct that it is not in any way meant to catch these people, but it was to reassure those groups that did come before us and testified. I would be happy to add “for greater certainty”, and I don't see any reason why.... I thought it went without saying that it was for the lawful provision on medical assistance in dying. Again, I have no problem with adding that wording if that makes any difference, somehow.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
It is, “For greater certainty, no social worker or psychologist, psychiatrist, therapist, medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, or other health care professional commits an offence if they provide information to a person on the lawful provision of medical assistance in dying.”
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you for everyone's contributions to that very stellar debate.
Mr. McKinnon.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I have a question about whether we actually need this list of people. Anybody can tell anybody about the lawful provision of a service. I don't know that we need to have this enumerated list of professions to do that. That's simply a suggestion.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any further debate or discussion? No.
We'll go back to Mr. Fraser to tie it up.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I think the wording, as proposed and read the last time, covers the concerns of all those around the table, and I appreciate the input from the department as well. I think it is important to cover off that issue that was raised by several groups that testified.
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
It's unanimously approved. We moved forward with lots of collaboration. That was great. Let's hope that continues.
On CPC-5, which is Mr. Genuis. Would somebody move that one, please?
Mr. Falk, thank you.
Mr. Genuis, go ahead.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to say that I didn't mean to imply, by point of order, that you're not being fair generally. I think you're doing an excellent job in a complex situation here.
I want to motivate this on a similar basis as the one I motivated on a previous amendment. I think the “reasonable but mistaken” provisions in this section, again, do not give much comfort to people who may find themselves in hospital and want to have the assurance that they will not have their life taken if they don't want it taken.
The task we have, the task we were actually given by the Supreme Court, is to be very careful about the safeguards we put in here to ensure that whatever criteria we establish are practically met. I don't think you do that by having an escape hatch that says that if the criteria are not met, and someone has their life taken who doesn't consent or doesn't meet criteria, their killer can evade prosecution on the basis of a reasonable but mistaken belief. It should be incumbent on those who take life, if we choose to allow such a thing, that they take every possible precaution and that the law is there to ensure that they take every possible precaution.
I've said that before, but I think it needs to be said again.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
Is there any other member of the committee who wishes to intervene?
All right, then we'll move to a vote on this amendment, CPC-5.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will move to the next amendment, which is CPC-5.1.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
It will need further amendment because, as it is written, it also made provision that there wouldn't be a nurse practitioner included in there, so that would need to be added in. In the spirit of collaboration we have seen here today, that's probably doable.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Can you let us know how you want to amend it, and we can do it on the fly.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
I'll read it to you: “(a) That prescribing or providing by a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner of a substance to a person, at their request so that they may, while under the supervision of the medical practitioner or the nurse practitioner, self-administer the substance and in doing so cause their own death; or (b) If a person is—”
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Do we add “nurse practitioner” also again there, Mr. Falk, in the second one?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
In both cases where it mentions “medical practitioner”, you'd put “nurse practitioner”.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Yes. My thinking there in the first section under paragraph (a) is that if a person has the ability to self-administer, that person should do that under the supervision of a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner. In the instances where the person doesn't want to self-administer, then the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner would administer.
Those are the changes.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Just so that I'm clear, what I understand in the page that has been distributed is we are inserting, in line 2 of paragraph (a), in line 4 of paragraph (a), after the words “medical practitioner” “or nurse practitioner” and the same is true in paragraph (b). In the third line after “medical practitioner” we're writing “or nurse practitioner”, and the rest is the same as on the paper.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
No, I've changed that last part so a person may self-administer the substance and in doing so cause death. It is important, and that's why I've switched the order around, that a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner be present at the time and that the person not self-administer alone. This captures that spirit. To have either one present during the administration of the lethal dose is prudent, and that, in essence, is what's happening here.