Justice Committee on May 9th, 2016

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This obviously adds a “terminal” requirement here.

Now, I understand that we have a Supreme Court decision, and maybe at some point someone could clarify the margin by which that Supreme Court decision happened, but I do think it's very much still worth motivating this amendment.

With respect to the Supreme Court decision, they did say that they would show a substantial degree of deference towards the legislature and they gave us terms that it was up to the legislature to define. We have a lot of language that does not have a sort of common medical meaning. Things like “grievous and irremediable”, as has been discussed, are not legal terms as such and they are not medical terms as such.

I think there is an opening there for us to come up with a definition, and I think “terminal” puts the finger on what most people think of when they think of this. They don't think of someone who has a serious illness at some point in life that they may overcome. They don't think of it as transitory; they think of it as a very final kind of thing. Just some of the existing language, “death being reasonably foreseeable”, as has been said, is very unclear, but I think narrowing it to a point where, at least at this stage, we clearly understand what it means medically and legally, is the safest way to go at this stage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. McKinnon.

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

My problem with this is that it drops the idea that the treatment has to be acceptable to the patient. The wording of subparagraph (c) says that “it cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable”. I think that's a critically important part that is omitted by this and, on that basis, I can't support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

In terms of that, obviously a patient doesn't have to accept treatment that they don't regard as acceptable, but it shouldn't very well be, in my view at least, a sufficient basis for seeking assisted suicide or euthanasia. There is treatment available to someone, potentially treatment that could cure their condition. They just decide that they don't want to go forward with that.

It's their option to refuse treatment, of course, but to say that someone doesn't want to have their suffering alleviated in a way that the medical system can alleviate it, that their desire not to have it alleviated is a sufficient basis for allowing them to access this, at that point you might as well allow anyone to commit suicide legally.

It doesn't make sense to me that the desire not to have your suffering alleviated is a sufficient basis for accessing the service.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We're now voting on CPC-14.1.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now move to PV-3.

Ms. May.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I suggested in the opening to my last amendment, in a series of amendments I'm attempting to restore proposed subsection 241.2(2) to a status of definition that's compliant with the Carter decision.

I note that some of the witnesses before the committee asked that this subclause be removed in its entirety. In this one, I haven't gone as far with my amendment as the Dying With Dignity witnesses asked you to do, but what I have done is remove the word “advanced,” so it would now read, “they are in a state of irreversible decline in capability” as opposed to “in an advanced state of irreversible decline”.

The position of Dying With Dignity was that this would force years of severe, unwanted suffering upon people who have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, but who have not yet reached the end stages of their medical condition.

The use of the word “advanced”, again speaking of terms that are imprecise, speaking of areas where we don't have clear medical guidance, in this context is unhelpful in meeting the guidance that we have from the Supreme Court of Canada, and imposes on people who otherwise meet the tests of BillC-14 unnecessary, additional suffering and grievous harm, denying them of their rights for longer than legislators should do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I know that the next amendment is on the same point with slightly different language, under the hand of Mr. Bittle. It would help me to hear what he has to say on this in order to best understand how to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I'll be withdrawing the amendment that comes up next.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Any further discussion?

If not, I'm going to give it back to Ms. May to end the discussion.

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

I think especially now, knowing that Mr. Bittle's amendment is being withdrawn, this is the only chance to amend proposed paragraph 241.2(2)(b) to ensure that we are not insisting upon an additional condition.

It was not part of the Supreme Court of Canada rationale. There was no suggestion in the decision of the court in Carter that one must have an advanced state of irreversible decline and capability. Again, the Dying With Dignity group asked that this entire clause be struck.

I'm hoping that my compromised effort here will meet with support from Liberal members of this committee.

Please pass at least one opposition amendment to BillC-14. I think it will improve our sense of a healthy democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Now we're going to go to a vote on PV-3.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Rankin abstained.

I did not see Mr. Deltell's vote, but I assume he was opposed to the amendment.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I was very discreet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Yes, very discreet indeed.

That will lead us to the next item on the list.

As I understand it, you're not putting forward Liberal-3, Mr. Bittle?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

That then takes us to amendment CPC-14.2, which is Mr. Viersen. Mr. Falk will move it so Mr. Viersen can speak to it.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Sorry, Mr. Viersen. I just want to make sure you know that amendments CPC-14.2 and CPC-14.3 are conflicting, so if CPC-14.2 is adopted, CPC-14.3—

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I wouldn't say they're conflicting. I'm quite convinced the same person wrote them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

You're probably right.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I submitted this amendment because I felt we needed to ensure that those with psychological suffering were given the help they need. Once again I'll go back to my “standing on the edge of the bridge” analogy. We need to ensure that we give hope to those who feel there is no hope in this world, and just allowing them to use the mechanism of physician-assisted dying is not giving them hope. I would like to take “psychological suffering” out of this debate at this time, which is why I put forward this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Is there any debate by members?

I do not hear any debate, so is there anything you want to say to close, Mr. Viersen?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

No, I've made my argument.