Justice Committee on May 10th, 2016

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

Mr. Chair, I'll just say—and I've heard this line of argumentation on a number of different amendments—that we should just trust in the good faith of physicians. Look, I think physicians are great people. As I just alluded to, there are several in my family, but there are 77,000 physicians in this country. Surely some of them are bad apples in a bunch so big.

Even that aside, a person acting in good faith can make a mistake, or misunderstand a person's words or intentions. We wouldn't say you can just leave it to the politicians since they're always trustworthy, and by the same token all of us are human beings. I don't think it makes sense to just say we don't need any kind of check on medical practitioners and that we should always just give them the greatest degree of discretion.

I think this provision protects people not only from intentional errors but also from accidental errors. It ensures that we're not taking the lives of people who don't consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Now we will move to a vote on amendment CPC-18.1.

(Amendment negatived)

Welcome to Mr. Mendicino, who is sitting in on our committee for the first time.

It's a pleasure to have you here.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I'm very happy to here, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

The next one in the package is amendment CPC-19, by Mr. Viersen.

However, Mr. Viersen, as a result of the defeat of amendment CPC-17, I would have to rule that CPC-19 is consequential to CPC-17, which was defeated yesterday. I don't think this can go forward, because it's consequential to an amendment that was already defeated. I'm sorry about that.

Now we move to amendment PV-9. As chair, I'm going to take a little bit of latitude here. Amendment PV-9 is substantially similar to amendments LIB-5 and CPC-20.1, and I'm hoping that the drafters of all three can work together in a non-partisan way and come up with an amendment that's acceptable to all of you, because I think they're very similar.

I'm going to turn to Ms. May because hers was on the agenda first.

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

I'm certainly happy to work with others, but as you know my status here is unwilling participant in committee because I wanted my rights as they exist under report stage, and one of the disadvantages that I have under the conditions created by the motion passed by this committee is that I can't amend my motions at the table. I can't participate in the same way. However, I'm more than flexible in real life despite the restrictions put on me by the motion that this committee was forced to pass by who knows who.

The motion I'm putting forward, as has been noted, is very similar to Mr. Fraser's and Mr. Viersen's motions and it's about something that a number of witnesses brought up.

Proposed subsection 241.2(4) contains the heading “unable to sign”. So if the person requesting medical assistance in dying is unable to sign and date their request, another person, who is at least 18 years of age and who understands the nature of the request for medical assistance in dying, may do so. The way it currently reads is “in the person's presence on their behalf”. My amendment says “may do so in the person's presence under their direction”. The Liberal amendment is “may do so in the person's presence on their behalf, but only at the express direction of that person” and Mr. Viersen's amendment is “at any time, withdraw their request”.

So they're similar, but the intent is virtually identical between Mr. Fraser's and mine. I provided a summary for them. The rationale is clear that we want to have that assurance that if someone is unable to sign, the person who does so on their behalf has done so under their direction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Nicholson.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

This does provide some greater clarification and greater certainty. I just want to point out that this is actually almost identical to the amendments by Mr. Falk as well as Mr. Fraser. So they're all—

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

That's amendment CPC-20.1. All three now add the concept that it be at the express direction of the person, in the person's presence, and on their behalf. I guess my question to the committee is since all three are substantially identical is there one that you're more comfortable with than the others?

Do you want to sort of work the wording so that—Mr. Fraser, do you have a thought on that?

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I take Ms. May's point well.

I agree that there might be a slight difference there with the words “but only” and I don't think that necessarily provides or adds anything to what is being attempted in my amendment LIB-5.

I like Mr. Falk's wording in amendment CPC-20.1, “may do so in the person's presence on the person's behalf and under the person's”—I would add “express”—direction. However, I would be amenable to that wording, and perhaps we could propose a subamendment to Ms. May's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Well, I think before proposing subamendments, Mr. Falk was okay with that wording, Ms. May. Are you okay with “may do so in the person's presence, on the person's behalf and under the person's express direction”?

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

Yes. All interpretations—what Mr. Fraser is doing, what Mr. Falk is doing, what I am doing—are to the same purpose.

I think the language of Mr. Falk's, with the addition of, as Mr. Fraser suggests, “express” direction, will achieve the same purpose as my amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

So if you're okay with that, let's use Mr. Falk's as the basis and add the word “express” before the word “direction”. I think everybody is satisfied with that....

Mr. Mendicino.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Forgive me if any of this has been covered. I'm just getting up to speed right now.

I understand there are potentially three iterations of this idea. I wonder if it might be helpful to have the analysts opine on this very briefly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I don't know if they're analysts, but they're representatives of the Department of Justice. If you want them to opine, they can opine, yes.

Ms. Klineberg.

[Joanne Klineberg]

I don't think there's any meaningful difference between any of them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Let's go to Mr. Falk's amendment, the revised CPC-20.1, which will now read as follows:

may do so in the person's presence, on the person's behalf and under the person's express direction.

(Amendment agreed to)

That was unanimously adopted. Good work, committee. That was good collegiality.

As a result of that, PV-9 and LIB-5 disappear.

We will move to CPC-20, which is Mr. Viersen's amendment....

Mr. Rankin, you have a new amendment? Does it come before this?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

No, it was a clause to be added afterwards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Afterward, so let's deal with Mr. Viersen's first, and we'll come to yours, Mr. Rankin, when we get copies.

Mr. Falk, will you put that forward so that Mr. Viersen can speak to it?

[Falk]

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Viersen, this is CPC-20.

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

Is it 8223311?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Correct: I have 8223311.

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

All right.

This amendment comes from a concern that if a request has been signed by somebody else, there is no reference to the person themselves being able to remove or withdraw the request, essentially. I would just like to have it clarified, within this portion as well, that at any time the person making the request may also remove the request.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Is there debate?

Mr. McKinnon.

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

I will vote against this amendment, because I think it's unnecessary. I think it's already well represented in the safeguards at this point.