Evidence of meeting #17 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.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
I wanted to point out that the government's position on this is informed in large measure by the excellent work that's being done over in the Senate in their pre-study. That was certainly a part of the reason for the government's support of this motion.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
I'd like to propose a subamendment.
After the word “assist”, I'd like to add “either directly or indirectly”, because I believe that's what I heard Mr. Rankin say, “in providing medical assistance”.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Maybe Mr. Rankin can respond, because this was assessed a lot before, so he can explain to you what—
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I don't know why it's not in the draft, but maybe he can explain it to you before you propose this.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I appreciate that. I've been persuaded by officials that in a Criminal Code amendment, the words “directly or indirectly” would be too vague to be accepted. As a result of that advice, we've taken out those words. I meant to say in providing the reason for this that it would affect people who provide it and those assisting in it, and assisting covers a wide array of activity.
That was the reason why those words couldn't be inserted, on the basis of legal advice.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
As we know, nothing within the act requires a referral. There is no section of the act that requires a referral. This act is about the Criminal Code, so all we are clarifying is that there is nothing within this act that compels an individual to provide or assist.
Again, we all discussed the words “directly or indirectly”. Based on the officials' recommendations, they are not there.
It is receivable; you can propose it.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay.
There is a subamendment by Mr. Falk to add the words. Can you just tell me where you would like to add them?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Yes, right after “assist”, to insert the words “either directly or indirectly” so that it would read “either directly or indirectly in providing medical assistance”.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Right now, what is on the floor is the subamendment—only whether or not the words “either directly or indirectly” are added after the word “assist”.
Mr. Fraser, go ahead.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
While I appreciate the point, I don't think it adds anything. I think it creates uncertainty in the law. We heard from the department that “directly or indirectly” causes a problem for an amendment to the Criminal Code. The words “to provide or assist”.... The word “assist” is very clear in that it is covering more people than just those actually providing the medical assistance in dying. I think it covers what we are trying to do. I think “directly or indirectly” would cause a problem for us, and I wouldn't support the subamendment.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any further debate on the subamendment?
Mr. Falk, do you want to close?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
No, I think I have made my point. I think it is important that it be there. I also hear what my colleagues here are saying, and the opinion of the justice officials, although I will support it anyway.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Perfect.
We will move to a vote on Mr. Falk's subamendment, about adding the words “either directly or indirectly”.
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we are back on the principal amendment from Mr. Rankin, which we will call NDP-4.1.
Is there any further discussion on that? If not, I will go back to Mr. Rankin to close.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I think this adds a lot of comfort to a lot of people, based on the testimony we have heard, and I hope it is accepted by the committee.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Falk, I think CPC-24.1 is also tied to the medical practitioner and the nurse practitioner. Is that dropped?
Did I miss CPC-24? I am sorry. Let me go back. We are going to go to CPC-24, about line 35 on page 7.
Mr. Falk, will you put that forward, so Mr. Genuis can speak to it?
Mr. Genuis, go ahead.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
This touches on some similar issues that were just discussed, but I think it includes some important elements.
I want to say that the previous amendment does not provide conscience protection. It recognizes that the federal legislation on its own does not compel an individual to provide or assist in assisted suicide or euthanasia, but in conjunction with existing policies, especially college policies in the province of Ontario, it would infringe on conscience. There is no solution of the conscience question by this amendment. I think it is a good amendment, but it does not fundamentally address the underlying problem.
My amendment clarifies that every person is entitled to refuse “to receive medical assistance in dying”, I don't think that point is particularly controversial, but “to provide, or refer for, medical assistance in dying”.
It actually provides a robust conscience protection for individuals. It does not mention institutions, but it provides that protection of conscience, which the previous amendment does not.
It specifically clarifies that referral constitutes involvement. This is an important point, perhaps sometimes disputed. If a country does not have capital punishment, it would almost certainly not extradite for capital punishment, because to directly refer or send someone to a place where they are receiving something that someone regards as unethical is a form of complicity. In the medical context, referral is not providing directions; it is not letting someone know that a service is available; it is not providing for an early transfer of medical records. These things all need to happen and should happen. A referral is a direct recommendation of an individual to someone else for a service that individual recommends they receive but is not qualified, for whatever reason, to provide oneself.
In the context of conscience objection, referral is not a solution. Referral requires an individual to be complicit in the action. If you think of that via the extradition analogy, it is particularly clear.
This provides conscience protection—there seems to be some consensus that it needs to be provided—and it clearly delineates the inclusion of referral as well, in terms of conscience protection.
On that basis, I think it needs to be passed.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
The issue of referral should be left to the colleges, to the provinces, as something that needs to be regulated, As I'm a lawyer, if an issue comes before me in my firm, something that I object to on any level, I can refuse to take that client. It's my job to refer an individual to a next step. That's done through a self-regulating body, the Law Society of Upper Canada, through legislation from the province.
I would like to get the department's analysis on this section, please.
4:35 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'm a little outside my expertise, but the view of the department is that this would be outside Parliament's jurisdiction. The provinces have the competence jurisdictionally to legislate on this, and likely it would be invalid federal law.