Justice Committee on May 10th, 2016

[Joanne Klineberg]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Since we've already just passed it, I don't think we need that much debate. All those in favour of CPC-31.1?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Let me just check if there is anything else left on clause 9. No, there's nothing left.

Is that correct, Mr. Clerk?

Perfect. Now we will move to clause 9 as amended.

(Clause 9 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Ms. May is proposing to insert a new clause 9.1, so we move to PV-12 at this point.

Ms. May, would you take the floor on PV-12? I would note that G-3 comes after PV-12. Because PV-12 was inserted first, if PV-12 is adopted, there would be a problem with receiving G-3. The first one is PV-12.

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

I did intend to canvas the subsequent amendment G-3 as well as my amendment PV-12, because although the language is different in the first subsection, subclause 9.1(1), the intent and the effect are entirely identical between G-3 and PV-12 in my first clause. The intent here in the first clause is to ensure that within three months of the coming into force of this bill, the Minister of Justice will initiate studies dealing with those areas that were canvassed and included in the recommendations that came from the all-party special House and Senate committee: the question of requests made by mature minors, the question of whether “grievous and irremediable condition” is a mental illness, and requests for, basically, advance directives. That cluster of issues was not included in this bill, but we've had indications they might be included later. The first part of my clause initiates studies in this area.

Now, what's not in G-3, and which I think is quite important, is my subclause 9.1(2) in PV-12, which, having initiated the studies—which would also be undergone under the following Liberal amendment—ensures that there would be a public tabling of a report based on those studies. The timeline is generous. Three months after the coming into effect of this bill, after royal assent, these studies would be initiated by the Minister of Justice. Also, two years after royal assent at the latest—they could come in earlier—there would be reports tabled in Parliament of any studies and recommendations from the studies.

That's a summary of what I'm proposing. Again, I've spoken to Ms. Khalid about it. We're absolutely certain that the first half of mine and all of the Liberal amendment are virtually the same. The big difference between mine and the subsequent amendment is to ensure that the studies that are initiated go someplace, and that the place that they go is Parliament, with a time limit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I do appreciate the spirit in which Ms. May has presented this amendment, and I very much agree with the intent behind it. I think that the past couple of weeks, and, in fact, this whole experience with medical assistance in dying, have really shed light on how important such an issue is and how varied the opinions are on how this should become law, whose rights are to be included, and how the process is to be administered. I appreciate that such a study needs to be done....and that we really undertake a big review on how and what the best way is to do this.

I do appreciate that such a review should be initiated. However, having gone through the time constraints we have with passing this bill and getting it through the House, etc., I also appreciate the time that is required in undergoing such a review. I don't think it would be beneficial to tie the hands of the minister by setting a specific timeline. I think we should give this a wholesome review as it is, so I will not be supporting the second clause of this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

I would agree. I believe the Liberal motion that is going to be following is better. The time frames are more realistic, and therefore I would not support Ms. May's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Is there any further discussion?

If not, I'll go back to Ms. May to close.

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

Given that the second amendment comes from not just one Liberal member, but the Liberal caucus, and is now presented as a government amendment, we can assume it will pass.

I think it's unfortunate to initiate the studies without the request for tabling them back to Parliament afterwards. I do think two years is generous, but if Ms. Khalid feels, or the Liberal caucus feels, two years is too much of a rush, perhaps they would like to offer a different time limitation.

It certainly is unfortunate to have studies initiated without a requirement that the studies themselves and their recommendations be made public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We'll now move to a vote on PV-12.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we'll move to G-3.

Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I indicated earlier, this amendment proposes to initiate a study. I will go ahead and read it: “The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health must no later than 180 days after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, initiate one or more independent reviews of issues relating to requests made by mature minors for medical assistance in dying, to advance requests and to requests for mental illness as a sole underlying medical condition.”

I believe these three issues were something that continued to come up as we listened to witness testimony, and I'm appreciative of the Liberal caucus, as a whole, trying to find solutions for addressing the concerns that were raised by Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you, and I appreciate the amending motion.

I believe a five-year review, which is what is in C-14, would be a more appropriate time for us to review.

The legislation has to be up and running for a reasonable length of time for us to be able to spot problems and changes that are necessary.

If a standing committee of justice wants to after a couple of years say how is it going, and we want to discuss the issue of advance directives and minors, that would be appropriate, but for it to be in the legislation is presumptive. I think it would be more appropriate to stick with C-14 and a five-year review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I support the amendment. I think it's reasonable based on the evidence we heard from the witnesses regarding the concern about the elements of mature minors, advance requests, and requests for mental illness. Those concerns were addressed in a special committee, and there the majority report and the minority report were well done, but we hadn't had a chance at this committee to take a fulsome approach. We need to undertake that so we have a broad consultation with Canadians.

I think it's reasonable that after six months that study should begin. It doesn't say when necessarily there has to be an answer on that. I think it's a reasonable way for us to study those answers without prejudging any sort of outcome before hearing Canadians on all sides, which we haven't had the opportunity to do, given the time constraints we've been under to get this legislation in place.

I think it's a reasonable measure, and I support the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Fraser, I appreciate your comments, although if we would consider all the witness testimony we heard last week, there are a lot of things we would have done differently in this bill so far.

We could argue both sides of this particular amendment based on witness testimony.

I would strongly support Mr. Warawa's comments that we have a five-year review coming. It's part of the legislation the government has asked us to study. I think that review is a reasonable amount of time to see if there are any particular trends that are developing, or if there are going to be any concerns with the bill that need to be addressed. I think that's the time when we should be studying to expand or contract the bill as it is today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have two points. The first is to Mr. Falk. Under the terms of review in its current wording, the act only allows—of course, it could be amended—that the provisions enacted by this act be referred for discussion within five years. So anything else, such as mature minors, advance requests, and mental illness would not be part of that because, just by the very wording of the section, they wouldn't be eligible.

The other question I had is just a technical question. We don't define the term “advance requests” anywhere in the bill. Does that cause anybody any difficulty? We know, having looked at it for months, what we mean, but I'm not sure that the average Canadian reading this would know. Therefore, if this were to have any meaning, I would have thought we should provide a specific definition of that term.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I'm just going to look at the preamble to see how it was referred to.

Line 21 of the preamble refers as well to advance requests. That doesn't mean it's clear but that's what it refers to.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Yes, I had this amendment proposed. As it is, I was going to make the same comment when we got to the preamble. I know what it means. We around here know what it means but does anybody else?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Can I ask a question to the department? Again, as chair, I'm not sure that's what I'm supposed to do, but I'm going to do it anyway.

If the words “advance directives” were to replace “advance requests” would that cause any issues for either the Department of Justice or the Department of Health, provided it was consistent throughout the act?

[Joanne Klineberg]

I would like our colleagues from Health Canada to comment, but my understanding of why we tend to use “advance requests” relates to the fact that, should it one day be something that Parliament decides to do, it might be outside of the advance directive regimes that the provinces have set up for other purposes, meaning that it might be a kind of stand-alone regime.

Also, I don't think “advance directives” is the common term used in all jurisdictions across the country. I think there was some desire to use slightly more general language, so that we weren't giving the sense that people were being boxed in to the legislative advance directive regimes under provincial governments.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

That's exactly what Professor Downey said when she spoke on behalf of the provincial-territorial task force for which she was a research director. That's exactly the point that she made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Are you comfortable, Mr. Rankin?