Evidence of meeting #16 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 amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Bloc
Louis Plamondon Bloc Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC
No, in this case, it's a matter of deleting the lines, not amending them.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I'm being told that an amendment can be proposed to delete those provisions.
May 10th, 2016 / 9:20 a.m.
Bloc
Louis Plamondon Bloc Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC
This isn't about changing the number of days specified but, rather, about removing the time frame completely.
I would remind you that Quebec's legislation was passed after years of consultation, with unanimous support from all the parties in the National Assembly. The act has unanimous support in Quebec and works very well. In Quebec, our experience has been that the time frame provision has never been used. In that sense, then, it seems completely needless to include a time frame, so we are suggesting doing away with the 15-day period completely.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Any comments on the amendment?
Mr. Plamondon, do you have anything further to say?
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Very good.
We'll go to the vote on BQ-7.
(Amendment negatived)
G-1 was incorporated into LIB-4, so we'll move to CPC-17.6.
I'm not sure, but I think this is regarding nurse practitioners again. We're going to presume that Mr. Falk has repeated his statement and we'll move to BQ-8.
We now move on to amendment BQ-8.
Mr. Plamondon, over to you.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Louis Plamondon Bloc Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC
The amendment seeks to delete proposed subsection 241.2(3)(h). It is our view that, in making their request, the person has given de facto advance consent. That applies to anyone with a grievous and irremediable medical condition, whether an illness, a disease, or a disability, that causes them enduring and intolerable suffering given their medical circumstances.
Therefore, we move that proposed subsection 241.2(3)(h) be deleted, in other words, that lines 37 to 40 be deleted.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much. Are there any comments on this amendment?
Is there any debate?
Mr. McKinnon.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I vote against this amendment because it introduces a back-door advance directive. It allows the directive to be given, but it removes an opportunity to withdraw it before the assistance is carried out.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any further debate?
Mr. Plamondon, did you have anything to add?
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Louis Plamondon Bloc Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC
I would just like to say that the rationale for this amendment comes from our experience with the legislation in Quebec. We believe the amendment is extremely relevant. The fact is that, ever since the act came into force, we have not had to use such a measure and the legislation works quite well in Quebec.
The time frame for our study is very tight, so I think we can draw from the experiences of other countries or provinces.
Thank you.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
We will now vote.
I want to let everyone know that I had only seen 17.1, and it's a nurse and medical practitioner that would be in conflict, because I figured that Mr. Falk would withdraw it, but I have to note that PV-7 would also, if this were adopted, fall away because it would be amending something that was no longer there.
We're going to go to a vote on BQ-8.
(Amendment negatived)
I guess 17.1 is the same thing.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Amendment CPC-17.7 is intended to add clarity to that final consent given just prior to the administration of the lethal dose. It says currently, as the bill is written, “immediately before”. I think most people would understand what that means, but “immediately before” to some people could mean a week prior.
The change in wording to “at the time of” means that at the time the procedure is going to be administered, that person is given one final opportunity to say “no”. It's just changing the words from “immediately before” to “at the time of”.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
So it's to change “immediately before” to “at the time of”. Got it.
Mr. Fraser.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I would just say from a drafting perspective that we would probably say that “immediately before” is quite clear and not open to being interpreted as anything other than in the moments immediately before. The concern with “at the time of” might be that medical assistance in dying is actually the administration of the lethal substance. So if it's at the time of the administration, that might be a moment too late.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
You're considering that it might already have started if you say “at the time of”.
Mr. Falk, given that comment, do you...?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
I can appreciate what the official said. It specifically doesn't say “during”. I just want to make certain that “just before” doesn't mean a week before. That's the intent.
I'm perfectly fine—
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Yes, I understand.
Could I ask the officials whether there is anything other than “immediately before” that you would suggest would satisfy his concern, or could you explain that it means exactly what he is saying?
9:30 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can't propose anything novel at this time, but I would draw to the committee's attention that the starting paragraph of proposed subsection 241.2(3) says “Before”, and paragraph (g) says “immediately before”. So in the drafting room we made an effort to distinguish between “before” and “immediately before”. The safeguards were also drafted in temporal order so that although they're not temporally linked to each other, the last one is immediately before, which in the drafting room is how we thought was the best way of conveying that it's in the moment before.
