Justice Committee on May 9th, 2016

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

While I appreciate your trying to define “reasonably foreseeable”, I have a concern. The bill elsewhere requires that 15 clear days be given with respect to having second thought or time for reflection. I think limiting it down to 30 days, of which 15 are basically spent in reflection, is too restrictive, and I do not support that at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Yes, it's just a quick point.

This follows on the discussion we had on imminent death. Obviously this, in my view, would be even more limiting than that; therefore, I can't support it. I know there can be disagreement and some debate over other language being used, but clearly Kay Carter would not have been able to avail herself with 30 days; she had more than 30 days to live. Clearly that would fail Carter, and therefore I can't possibly support the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Are there any other interventions? If not, I'm going to go back to Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I was actually somewhat surprised that somebody didn't make a subamendment to adjust that 30-day time period to something that was more palatable. The Belgian model has a 30-day cooling-off period, from what we heard from our testimony.

We've proposed in this legislation a 15-day period. That would still provide adequate time to reconsider one's position, given the amount of time that would be required to make this decision.

It's a starting point. As I've said before in some of the other amendments, let's proceed cautiously with this. We can open the floodgates four or five years down the road from now if we decide this is too limiting, but why wouldn't we advance cautiously?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Now we're moving to the vote on CPC-15.1.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings] )

We will now move to CPC-15.2.

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

This is withdrawn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We'll move to amendment CPC-15.3, which is also yours.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Paragraph (a) of proposed subsection 241.2 (3) says that the “medical practitioner or nurse practitioner” needs to:

be of the opinion that the person meets all of the criteria set out in subsection (1)

I'm thinking that we need to strengthen this provision and that the person making that decision should have reasonable proof that the person meets all of the criteria set out in proposed subsection 241.2(1).

I think it's not unreasonable to have reasonable proof, rather than just an opinion. Anybody can have the opinion, but this puts in another check and balance and safeguard: to actually have proof in your hand that yes, the person does qualify, does meet all the criteria set out previously in this bill.

I think it's important. We have to put proper safeguards in here so that we protect vulnerable people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Bittle.

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

To me this seems redundant, because the reasonable proof is always going to be the medical opinion. Even if it's before a superior court judge, as Mr. Falk has recommended, it will always be based on the medical opinion, and that will be the proof. Again, this is an attempt to limit...

[Technical difficulty--Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Bittle, I'm sorry you were interrupted.

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

That's okay. I'll finish up. This is just another attempt to limit medical assistance in dying, and I would vote against it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay. Are there other interventions on this amendment?

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, I would very strongly disagree with Mr. Bittle's interpretation of this amendment. It is not at all an attempt to limit access to physician-assisted suicide. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. This is to provide access, to provide unequivocal access, not just an opinion. It's not just a case of , “Oh, I thought the witnesses were independent” and “I thought the witnesses had signed”. No, this means that you have to have a reasonable proof, and that's what this amendment is saying.

It's not a delay tactic; it's not trying to prevent anyone from accessing this procedure. This is saying that if you're going to kill somebody, you should have reasonable proof, not just an opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Now we're going to move to a vote on amendment CPC-15.3.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now move to amendment CPC-16, which is, I think, tied to CPC-12.

Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Yes, and in light of the fact that amendment CPC-12 was defeated, I will withdraw this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

Amendment CPC-16 will not be moved, which brings us to CPC-17, I believe, which is Mr. Viersen's.

There is a conflict between amendments CPC-17 and BQ-5. Should amendment CPC-17 be adopted, amendment BQ-5 cannot be adopted.

Mr. Falk moves it.

Mr. Viersen, go ahead.

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

This amendment comes out of the desire to ensure that there is indeed consent. One thing is that if somebody is unable to consent.... I understand, if somebody can only wink or move their eyebrows or something like that in the form of giving their consent; I wish that there be a video recording of that, with the date on it and things like that. That's why I've moved this motion.

I think there's another motion, which comes up later, dealing with video recording as well.

In the past we have debated in this place on capital punishment, and the reason we went away from capital punishment was for the sake of one innocent person's life's being lost. In this instance, it's for the sake of one person who didn't consent having their life taken that I would see us put in all the safeguards possible, to ensure that those who “consent” actually did consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I think this is a good amendment. I don't have to think any further than about the Honourable Steven Fletcher, who doesn't have the ability to move his hands or anything. If ever he, as someone like that, would be in a situation to request this procedure, a video recording would be audible and visible, and I think it would provide the evidence and the consent that this bill should require.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I won't be supporting this amendment.

I don't see how it helps us to determine whether the person was actually voluntarily giving informed consent. A video recording would also, perhaps, encroach on the person's privacy rights, and I would be concerned as well about where that tape would go. Largely, the reason is that, to my mind, it doesn't really get to the salient issue, which is whether there was valid, informed consent. It doesn't help in that regard at all.

I would not not support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Genuis.

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

The proposal to have video or audio recordings has come up a number of times, and there has been an objection with respect to privacy.

Of course, physicians retain patient medical records on all sorts of very private matters; it's just that they're in written form instead of in recorded form.

It's not obvious to me how having a recording in the file as opposed to having a written note in the file raises any additional privacy considerations, provided you're not uploading it somewhere, of course. In fact, the movement toward e-health records particularly underlines the fact that there's no substantive difference between an audio or video file and a written file, from a privacy perspective.