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.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Ms. May.
This is on PV-10.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll move now to CPC-23.
Mr. Cooper.
May 10th, 2016 / 4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Very simply, this amendment would provide conscience protections for medical health professionals, as well as health institutions. It is important that everyone's charter rights are respected and not only the charter rights of patients who have the right to access physician-assisted dying, but also the charter rights of health professionals with freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. These rights, under section 2 of the charter, are not just any charter rights; they are fundamental freedoms. I think there is certainly a need for consistency, and that would be what this amendment would provide.
It is analogous to legislation that is already on the books, and that is section 3.1 of the Civil Marriage Act.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I have serious concerns about this, in explicitly granting conscience rights to institutions, especially since these institutions will be publicly funded. These institutions are not analogous to institutions under the Civil Marriage Act, because those are churches and these are publicly funded institutions. It may be that the only institution in a community is a religious-based institution, and I don't see how this meets what we're trying to accomplish.
Furthermore there's no court case—and I believe I've asked witnesses—apart from a minority decision in a Supreme Court case that refers to a private Catholic school. There's no case where the Supreme Court has granted conscience rights to a publicly funded institution.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I agree with that. The only thing I would add is that, with regard to individuals, we will be dealing with that in a moment, on another amendment that will be brought forward with the collaboration and work of members from all parties.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Again, I just want to thank Mr. Cooper, Mr. Rankin, and Mr. Fraser for working together so collaboratively on what will come forward, regardless of how it is dealt with.
Is there any further debate?
Mr. Nicholson, go ahead.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Mr. Cooper raises a very good point, that institutions motivated or bound by certain philosophies, religions, and everything else could find themselves exposed. I think this is exactly what he is targeting here. Just because there are only one or two cases, or a minority decision that is directed at a religious institution, that doesn't mean this isn't going to be something we will have to look at in the future. I would like us to do the right thing now and protect the institutions that will have a problem with this. I am hoping that the members of the committee will join together and give that protection to everybody, not just the individuals but the institutions as well.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I would like to respond to Mr. Nicholson.
Institutions are not individuals; they are not people. They don't have rights under the charter. I side with Mr. Fraser's argument that we can't be talking about rights of institutions in this context, so I will not be supporting this amendment.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
I think Mr. Cooper has raised a very important issue with this amendment. It is by far one of the most predominant issues that filled our time with our witnesses. In this particular case, I think institutional conscience falls into the very same category as individual conscience, because many of the hospitals we have right across our country were originally founded by faith-based organizations. Their boards of directors and administrators are still faith-based and make decisions for that institution from a faith-based perspective. I think we need to respect that. We wouldn't have these institutions here today that provide these services if it weren't for these faith-based organizations that initiated them. I think this just affords them the protection they need to have to operate in a conscientiously driven organization. I think they deserve it. They have earned this.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
We have had three Conservative speakers. Let me just see if anybody else wishes to speak on this side.
Mr. Genuis, do you have something to add? I'll let you add something very briefly.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I just want to say that, aside from the philosophical questions here, there is a real practical risk to not protecting the rights of institutions. There are cases internationally where a failure to protect the conscience rights of religion-based charitable institutions has led to those institutions closing. I am very worried that we will get into the same situation when it comes to Catholic hospitals and Catholic health care institutions. That is a big cost. Even if you don't agree with conscience rights for institutions philosophically, I would ask members to think about the cost for patients, in terms of access to other services, that would result if many of these health care facilities ceased to operate.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I just wanted to respond again that, while I take the point about the concern for institutions—how they operate and how they need to have the freedom to do so—no individual who acts within these organizations, whether as a director, a doctor, a nurse, or whatever, is compelled to provide services under this act. By protecting the rights of the individuals, we would be indirectly protecting the institutions. That would be my point.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any further discussion?
I am going to go back to Mr. Cooper to give him a chance to sum up the arguments and close.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
In response to the point that was made by Mr. McKinnon that institutions are not people and therefore do not have charter rights, it should be noted that Chief Justice McLachlin, in the Loyola decision, specifically said, about the charter rights under section 2, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, that individuals and institutions are intertwined. It is a very real issue. I know that health institutions have expressed significant concern. I think it is important that we provide those institutions that provide high-quality health services in many parts of our country with the protection they have asked for. There is nothing this amendment would do that would preclude access to medical assistance in dying for patients who wish to access it.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
I think it was well argued on both sides. Now we're going to get to the vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This now brings us to amendments NDP 4.1 and Lib 8, which I think are the joint product now of the working group that was created.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
That's exactly right, and I'd like to salute Mr. Cooper and Mr. Fraser. This is definitely a joint effort.
Mr. Chair, it's in two parts. The main part I think has been distributed. It's a handwritten page, very similar to Mr. Fraser's, but with a couple of key changes.
The suggestion was that after line 2 on page 8, we add, “for greater certainty, nothing in this section compels an individual to provide or assist in providing medical assistance in dying”. The phrase “medical assistance in dying” is already defined. You'll note it deals with an individual.
I can foreshadow there will also be an amendment proposed to the preamble that will make explicit reference, as you'll see in the next page, to the charter and nothing affecting the guarantees of freedom of conscience and religion in the charter.
I know we're not talking about that, but I think people need to know that reference will be made as part of this package we've agreed to.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Before we get to debate, I need to say, as chair, because right now we're only dealing with this specific motion, while you can say this is what you intend to propose, there can be no link between one and the other. I wanted to make sure everybody's debating the motion on the floor, which is after line 2, on page 8.
Mr. Rankin.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I would just echo some of the comments made in the debate over the last motion by Mr. Cooper. We heard enormous testimony, both at the joint panel and at the justice committee hearings, on the need to find some way to provide comfort to people who have freedom of religion or freedom of conscience reasons for not wishing to participate in any way, shape, or form in this procedure.
This is an attempt to make sure people don't feel there's any compulsion to, either directly or indirectly, assist in providing it or doing it themselves. That was the objective of the proposed amendment.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you very much, and I do appreciate Mr. Cooper and Mr. Rankin working on this with me to come up with language that was satisfactory to the three of us and hopefully for the entire committee.
I think it is important from the testimony we heard, and from the evidence we heard, that it perhaps was an issue. People felt that maybe their conscience rights weren't being protected as adequately as they could be. All along I have agreed with the minister's position that nothing in the act compels, so for greater certainty, this puts it in there.
We'll work on language in the preamble, as well, that hopefully will get adopted and be able to make this absolutely certain. I do think the language is adequate in order to not stray into territory that could potentially cause problems constitutionally, and therefore I'm definitely supporting this amendment.
Thank you.