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.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Okay. Just to close it up, I know what “immediately before” means. I would just hate it if this were misinterpreted, and I thought that maybe I could add clarity to that, but I'm actually fine, so we can vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay. So we'll vote on amendment CPC-17.7.
(Amendment negatived)
We will now move to amendment PV-7.
Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This is a critical amendment that I'm proposing, and I seem to be the only member proposing something that would deal with....
When I first read this bill at first reading, I had a discussion with my staff. I said that this can't mean what it says because it creates a nonsense. You can't say, as it currently reads, that you must give the person an opportunity to withdraw their request and ensure that the person gives express consent in a context in which someone has given clear directives around their medically assisted death and no longer has the capacity to form consent. Given the kinds of grievous and irremediable conditions that are the very subject of this bill, it struck me as bad drafting. I'm afraid it gradually dawned on me that it was intentional, that this was an intentional effort on the part of the government to ensure that people who've lost capacity will have no access to medically assisted dying.
This then leads to the very large problem that the Supreme Court's decision was premised on exactly this circumstance. They felt that people would be pressed to perhaps end their lives prematurely while they still had the capacity and the ability, knowing that when the moment comes when they had most sought medically assisted death it would be denied to them because they would have passed the point where express consent can be given.
My amendment is very simple. It's to insert the clause “if the person is still capable”. It would then read:
immediately before providing the medical assistance in dying, if the person is still capable, give the person an opportunity to withdraw their request and ensure that the person gives express consent to receive medical assistance in dying.
I submit to you that anything less creates both an injustice and a nonsense.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
While I appreciate the intent of the amendment, I note that this is exactly why the abridgment of the “clear days” required is in there, so that if the medical or nurse practitioner felt it were likely that the person was about to lose their capacity, then that time could be abridged to address that issue. The whole idea here is that the person is given an opportunity to change their mind. That's what the point of the reflection period is and this amendment—saying that the person only has to have the ability to withdraw the consent if they still have capacity—would fly in the face of the other provisions and safeguards that are in there, including, in particular, the abridgment clause, which was put in there for exactly the reason that she is concerned about.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Are there any other comments or discussion?
Not hearing any, I'll go back to Ms. May to close.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
With all due respect to Mr. Fraser, I don't know how many people you've been with as they're dying, or how many cases you've known. In my case, I know that my own father was incapable of forming anything like consent for a year and a half before his death. There are many people who would say, “I don't care what kind of condition I have deteriorated to. I don't care how lost my personality is to me, how lost my ability to form words is, or how lost my ability is to make eye contact due to my grievous and irremediable condition. That's not my concern. I want to stay with it as long as long as I possibly can draw breath of life.” Others would say that the Carter decision is clear, that it is a violation of my rights under the charter to be denied the opportunity to have a medically assisted death that does not force me to take my life prematurely, so I avoid a year and a half of grievous and irremediable deteriorating condition in which the ability to form legal consent is no longer possible.
I submit to you, with all respect, that 10 clear days of reflection is an irrelevant concern to people who has lost the ability to either reflect or form consent far more than 10 days before their deaths.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Now, we're going to move the vote on PV-7.
(Amendment negatived)
Now we will move to PV-8. Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Amendment PV-8 is looking at that issue of the difficulty of communicating by reason of a physical or mental disability. This would create a paragraph (i):
If the personal difficulty communicating by reason of a physical or mental disability take all reasonable measures to provide a reliable means by which that person may understand the information that is provided to them and communicate their decision.
This comes from a recommendation by Communications Disabilities Access Canada to the committee.
I think it's straightforward as presented, so I don't think I'll use all of my time. I hope the committee members will consider it.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Ms. May mentioned mentioned “all reasonable measures”. The wording is “all necessary measures”. There wasn't a subamendment to that was there? It is supposed to be “all necessary measures”.
Green
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Okay. I think this is reasonable. I believe this does directly respond to the testimony we heard, to ensure that all reliable means are given to the person to understand what they are trying to convey is appropriate in the circumstances. I would support this amendment.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Chair, I would like to support this amendment and would support it, if I could make a subamendment, which would be to delete the words after “communicating” and before “take”. My subamendment would delete “by reason of a physical or mental disability”.
In particular, the bill, as it is written today, does not provide for mentally incompetent people to make this decision. This would be already opening the door for that. I think if it would read:
if the person has difficulty communicating, take all necessary measures to provide a reliable means, without defining physical and mental.
I don't want us to define “by reason of physical or mental disability”. I just want to take that wording out of there. It doesn't change what would happen, but to me it's important that the wording in the middle not be included. That would be my subamendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Ms. May, would you be willing to amend your motion as such? If not, we'll make a subamendment.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Under the strange rules in which I find myself, I'm not certain I'm allowed to comment on or accept or reject subamendments to my amendments, because they're only—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
No, I'm not asking you to accept or reject the subamendment. Because we've been very flexible at this, if you want to change the motion you put forward, we could do it that way too, to avoid having to vote on a subamendment.
Do you accept that? If not, we'll do it as a subamendment and start debating the subamendment.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry I misunderstood initially.
I prefer my version of the amendment, and I'm still thinking about Mr. Falk's subamendment. I constructed this specifically in relation to the circumstances that were raised by Communication Disabilities Access Canada. I'm grateful to Mr. Fraser to know that he supports my amendment. I don't think it does violence to my amendment to accept Mr. Falk's amendment, but I'm still thinking through Mr. Falk's amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay, thank you very much.
We're going to debate the subamendment by Mr. Falk.
Mr. McKinnon.
Liberal
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Yes, it's just removing “physical or mental disability”. It would still leave it open to somebody who couldn't communicate, for whatever reason. I would have no difficulty supporting that. I don't see why that would be a problem.
