Justice Committee on May 10th, 2016

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

I would just suggest to Mr. Falk that given that the language that remains after BQ-4 uses the term “grievous and irremediable”, and that it has previously been defined in proposed subsection 241.2(2), it actually is consistent as a result.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Yes, I concur exactly. “Grievous and irremediable” is defined elsewhere in act, and this wording would be consistent with that. It comes following the definition. I agree with Ms. May.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Given that this is a relatively new one, Mr. Rankin, did you want to intervene?

Can we just give them time to understand this for a second? They want to go back and understand their definition.

In terms of the department, we have a request from Mr. Falk for the department's position.

[Joanne Klineberg, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I would just point out for the committee that the use of words “grievous and irremediable” in this section would track all of proposed subsection 241.2(2) from the previous page, but included within proposed 214.2(2) on the previous page is the person's subjective experience of intolerable suffering. The committee might want to consider the impact of saying that the person was informed of proposed paragraphs 241.2(2)(a), (b), (c), and (d), where proposed paragraph 241.2(2)(c) is their unbearable suffering.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I'm sorry. Can you repeat the last part? I didn't hear it.

[Joanne Klineberg]

This amendment would mean that the written request would have to be signed and dated after the person was informed that they have a serious and incurable illness, that they're in a state of advanced and irreversible decline in capability, and that the illness, disease, or disability is causing them enduring and intolerable suffering.

The legal effect of the amendment is that the person would have to be informed of their own suffering. It's the (c) element of proposed subsection 241.2(2), because you're capturing all four elements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

They wouldn't be informed of it; that would have to be the case before this could happen. It tracks back to the definition as a whole. Is there any further discussion or debate on this if you feel it's necessary and you're adding something?

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

I know I can't move it, but I wonder if members would consider a subamendment that clarified, as defined in the previous section....

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

It's clear because it's a definition. It's really clear.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Is there any further discussion? If not, we're going to vote on BQ-4.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

As a result of BQ-4 being adopted, CP-17.2 is no longer acceptable because it would amend the same line that BQ-4 did. We're going to jump over CP-17.2 and go to BQ-5.

Mr. Plamondon, you may go ahead.

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

We prefer to withdraw this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay, then. Great. Amendment BQ-5 has been withdrawn.

We now move on to amendment BQ-6.

Mr. Plamondon, the floor is yours.

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

The purpose of the amendment is to immediately make clear, in proposed subsection 241.2(3)(d), that the decision must be voluntary and informed, and that the request may be withdrawn or delayed. What we are proposing seems pretty clear from the text.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much. That was very succinct.

Does anybody wish to intervene on this amendment?

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

It's a good amendment and we'll support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Are there any other interventions on this amendment?

Mr. McKinnon.

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

I feel this amendment is redundant. We've covered this off in the safeguards quite thoroughly, so I will vote against it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Is there any further discussion or debate on this amendment?

Mr. Plamondon, did you want to add anything?

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

No, I'm fine. Like you, I'm waiting for the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Very good. Thank you.

We'll proceed to a vote on BQ-6.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we'll move to CPC-17.3. It's Mr. Falk's.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Part of the information that I think is critical for a person to make an informed decision is that they must also have been given a full consultation and briefing on their palliative care options and what's available to them. I think that's absolutely critical when you're making a serious and grave decision like this. The full spectrum of palliative care must have been explained to them, that they understand it, and they have been able to consider it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Are there any further interventions on CPC-17.3?

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

While I appreciate the intention of the amendment, I will not support it. I believe we had this discussion yesterday on several other amendments dealing with palliative care. It tells the physician how to decide on informed consent, rather than leaving it to the physician to decide.

Obviously, we would hope and trust that palliative care would always be discussed. “Have had” puts an undue requirement that I believe would potentially create an unnecessary barrier. Therefore, I would not support the amendment.