Mr. Hussen.
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.
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.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ahmed Hussen Liberal York South—Weston, ON
I'd like to get the Department of Justice officials' take on the consequence of this amendment.
5:45 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Unfortunately, I can only speak very generally to this clause, because the lead for this particular legislation and amendment belongs with another department, and they worked with a different set of drafters, so I was not present in the drafting room.
If the committee is looking to change the word “entitled”, I would think the best word might be “eligible”, because that would match up with the eligibility criteria. I'm not really comfortable making too many comments, just because this is a statute under the responsibility of a different department and minister.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
If members agree, I'd be quite comfortable with the use of “eligible” instead of the word “able”, if that is what people want. It doesn't bother me.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
If you want, it could be deemed moved with the word “eligible”, so that we don't have to start dealing with a subamendment but just move it with the word “eligible”.
Mr. Fraser.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
My reading on this is that the entitlement or the eligibility is with regard to the medical assistance in dying and not the pension scheme itself. Is that the reading of the department? I think it probably is, but I just want to be absolutely sure.
May 10th, 2016 / 5:45 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That would be my reading as well.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Okay. That being the case, I would support that use of the word “eligible”.
I believe, though, I would take Mr. Genuis up on his comment that he would be okay with adding the word “disability” if it were required in the first part to get support.
I think it's important to maintain consistency throughout the bill and so I would look to insert the words “or disability” there. But with the word “eligible”, I think his would be an amendment I could support.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay. There's a subamendment to....
I'm assuming that you're not just in agreement to make it as if he moved that way?
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I would like to move it the way I moved it, in that way, but I think a subamendment is a....
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
—to add the words “or disability”.
Right now the vote is to add the word—“illness, disease or disability”—as going back to the way it was drafted before in that part, with those three words, “illness, disease or disability”. So we're adding back the word “disability” and we're putting a comma between “illness” and “disease” and an “or” between “disease” and “disability”.
Is that correct, Mr. Fraser?
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any discussion on the subamendment?
We will vote on the subamendment, which is changing only “illness or disease” to be “illness, disease, or disability”.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're back to the main amendment, as amended. The amendment is “deemed to have died as a result of the illness, disease, or disability for which they were determined to be eligible”.
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I think this is the end of clause 7.
(Clause 7 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 8)
I believe that clause 8, from CPC-30, is related to other amendments, Mr. MacPherson, that you introduced that were back to CPC-1 on the terminology, and as a result it is inadmissible.
We're going to bypass CPC-30, which is inadmissible, and we'll get to a vote on clause 8.
Is there any debate on clause 8 as a whole?
Mr. McKinnon.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I'd like to ask officials to confirm this is the same situation as previously noted, regarding noxious substances.
6:55 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No, this is an amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Basically it says they don't have to go through a process when the person dies to do—
6:55 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
—an investigation that is otherwise required when an inmate dies in custody. This is an amendment that says the investigation is not required when the person dies as a result of medical assistance in dying.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any further discussion on clause 8?
(Clause 8 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 9)
CPC-31 is connected to CPC-1, and CPC-31.1. is receivable, Mr. Genuis, in order to reflect the changes that were agreed to before. We'll now move it with the changes from before. Do you want to read what you would now propose, Mr. Genuis?
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Sure, but I have only one copy.
This is the same amendment, and I'm moving it in a way that reflects the subamendments that were made previously. It reads, “is deemed to have died as a result of the illness, disease, or disability for which they were determined to be eligible to receive that assistance in accordance with”, etc.
It's substantively the same as the previous amendment.
7 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Can I get the department officials to illuminate whether it would be considered the same as the previous one that we did?