Justice Committee on May 10th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Ladies and gentlemen, good morning.

It's a pleasure to call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order as we resume our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-14.

It's a pleasure to have you all here this morning. I hope our discussion continues to be fruitful.

Yesterday was a long session, and I really appreciated everyone's openness and tone. It was an excellent session in terms of tone, and I hope that continues today. I'm sure it will.

We are starting from where we left off, with amendment PV-5.

I'm going to turn to Ms. May to explain PV-5.

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

While you're extending compliments to the members of the committee for the tone, may I extend compliments to you as chair for conducting a very difficult and fraught process, over a critical bill, in an exemplary fashion.

With that sucking up to the chair, I will proceed to my amendment. In brief, in form and substance it's basically taking the same piece that I argued last night in relation to what I regard as a set of conditions that misinterpret, to put it mildly, the court's understanding of “grievous and irremediable” to include this nonsense of “reasonably foreseeable”.

I'm not trying to be light about this. I do think it's a critical issue. This amendment appears in the safeguard section and is merely consistent with the arguments I made last night, where the person's natural death has become reasonably foreseeable. I've changed that to:

the person has been diagnosed with a grievous and irremediable medical condition causing enduring and intolerable suffering, taking into account all of their medical

That's my amendment that I put to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

For discussion, is there any member of the committee that wishes to speak?

Mr. McKinnon.

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

I believe this amendment has a great deal in common with the subsequent amendment BQ-4.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I agree. BQ-4 is a line conflict. I should have mentioned that at the beginning, so thank you Mr. McKinnon for letting me raise that.

BQ-4 and CP-17.2 have line conflicts with PV-5, so if PV-5 is adopted, we will not move forward with BQ-4 and CP-17.2.

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

That's another great argument for adopting this, given all the time you will save because you won't have to deal with the other two amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. McKinnon.

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

I would be comfortable supporting the subsequent one. It does what this one tries to do in a more concise way, so I will vote against this one and support the following one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Or you can move to amend this one to be consistent with the next one, whatever you prefer.

Ms. May, do you have a position on that?

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

Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to see a response by the majority of the members to take some steps toward fixing this. Although my attempt at a definition is one that comes closer to the details of the courts, if Liberal members of the committee—and I don't assume Mr. McKinnon is speaking on behalf of anyone but himself—are more comfortable with the BQ-4 motion, I'm prepared to withdraw mine to support BQ-4.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I would support the following one and agree with Mr. McKinnon's comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Ms. May, are you content for the moment to withdraw this one and move to BQ-4?

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

As a procedural matter, I'm not sure if I'm empowered to withdraw a motion that has been submitted on the basis of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

No, once it's put on the table, you're not able to.

Can I suggest, though, out of curiosity, so that we don't lose this one, that we move to the debate on BQ-4 and come back to yours, because in the event BQ-4 is adopted, this one then becomes redundant?

(Amendment allowed to stand)

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We are going to proceed to amendment BQ-4.

Mr. Thériault isn't here to introduce his amendment. Mr. Plamondon, are you going to do it on Mr. Thériault's behalf?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Yes, exactly.

I'll introduce the amendment very quickly. I think everyone's read it and discussed it given that you're preparing to substitute it for amendment PV-5. After reading the Barreau du Québec's submission, we decided to propose this amendment. Given that the Carter decision would inevitably give rise to legal challenges, I believe our amendment is entirely appropriate.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

We will now begin the debate.

Would anyone like to comment?

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I support the language in BQ-4. I believe it makes it simpler and easier to understand. For the reasons stated earlier by Mr. McKinnon, I'd be prepared to support that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

We should probably have this discussion as a group instead of just between you and me, sir.

To adopt these amendments would be inconsistent with what the committee has done up until now, and that's removing this line:

the person's natural death has become reasonably foreseeable

We haven't made any amendments or allowed any amendments to that clause previously, and that we're now going to delete that from this section of the bill doesn't make any sense. If we're not willing to change it in any of the prior clauses or proposed subclauses, then I don't think we should change it here either. It's been put there because it's consistent with the rest of the clauses.

[An hon. member]

The law has to be consistent.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

It has to be consistent. You can't just pick and choose where you want it and where you don't.

[An hon. member]

That's right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I'll allow Ms. May to speak because it's partially her motion, and then we'll go to Mr. McKinnon.