Justice Committee on May 10th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.

Mr. Casey wishes to just advance the position of the government.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

The government is opposed to this amendment. There is nothing to preclude the government from advancing its agenda with respect to palliative care, and the specific reference to it in the five-year review adds nothing to the political commitment that's been made. It is something that I would argue is unnecessary, involves provincial jurisdiction, and would be the subject of negotiation as opposed to something that belongs in this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I appreciate that. I appreciate what Mr. Fraser said as well. Am I right in thinking, though, that there would be no reference to it at all in the bill, that the words “palliative care” would not appear unless we're able to find a way to bring them into the preamble? Am I right in saying that the words “palliative care” would not appear anywhere in this bill? That's a question that I'm asking the group.

I have to say, having sat through all of the Senate-House committee—I see Mr. Cooper nodding—and all through the justice committee, to not even see those words appear would be shocking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Just to answer the question, the only place that I see any reference that would be similar is already in the preamble where it says, “...whereas the Government of Canada has committed to develop non-legislative measures that would support the improvement of a full range of options for end-of-life care...”

If end-of-life care is synonymous with palliative care to some extent—

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

To some extent, I'm not sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

—that would be the only place that it is currently in the bill.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I say again therefore that the words palliative care would not appear anywhere, and I don't agree that those words are synonymous; they're overlapping.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I didn't suggest that they were. I just said that would be the only place I see anything similar.

Mr. Falk was the one who moved this.

Mr. Falk, I'm going to go back to you to close the debate.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

For all the reasons and perspectives the other side brought up there in perhaps not supporting it, I think it just actually strengthens the whole notion that it's actually an imperative to have in here.

When I look at the scope, the G-3 amendment that we just inserted into this bill did not have to be there either. We chose to put it in there for the review.

All of our witnesses attested to the relationship between palliative care and physician-assisted suicide. You cannot separate the two. They're so critically important to each other. Say that we don't want to include in there a report or review of the whole aspect of palliative care because it's an inter-jurisdictional issue; well, so will physician-assisted suicide be inter-jurisdictional as well. It's going to require the same amount of collaboration with jurisdictions to get a decent report there as well.

This just helps to encompass the wholeness of what we're trying to do here, and that's to see whether this bill is really going to be effective, whether it's doing what we're asking it to do, and what the influencing factors that have affected the activity of this bill are. Palliative care is absolutely essential to that. If you do not review palliative care, you're not going to get a comprehensive review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

I think we've now finished the debate, so we're going to move to a vote on CPC-32.2.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now move to CPC-32.3.

Mr. Falk, this appears to be yours.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

It's a follow-up. It's actually quite simple. It's actually putting a parameter on what we just asked for. It's saying that within six months there should be a report from the time that the review has been initiated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay. I understand. It's receivable.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I don't know if I need to say more than that. It says “six months”, and I think six months is probably adequate to do a review and then provide a report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Is there debate on CPC-32.3?

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Falk, this is the first time I've seen this, so I apologize, but can you explain to me the purpose of this, just so I get it?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

If you look at subclause 10(2), it states:

Report (2) The committee to which the provisions are referred is to review them and submit a report to the House or Houses of Parliament of which it is a committee, including a statement setting out any changes to the provisions that the committee recommends.

I'm suggesting that we insert, on the 27th line, the following: “a committee within six months after the day on which the provisions are referred to it, including a statement setting out”.

In other words, from the time that the report begins, within six months they should be tabling a report of that review to either House or both Houses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Warawa.

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

Speaking to that, what Bill C-14 requires is that a report be submitted but with no time frame attached to it. It has happened, in the 12 and a half years I've been here, that to meet a requirement a study will be started or initiated, with no continuum of that study, but they've met the requirement to initiate a study. At times, if it's vague on when it has to be reported, sometimes it never is.

I think this tightens it up. I think to say that from when a report started it has to be submitted within six months takes away the vagueness. We would know that a report would be submitted. There's a tangible timeline. Without that, it's left vague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Understood.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Can I ask the officials if they have any comment on that?

I'm just concerned that we have the words “may be designated or established”, in terms of setting up a committee possibly, and then we're saying that within six months they have to do something. I'm just wondering if there would be a conflict of terms between subclauses 10(1) and (2).

[Carole Morency, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I think the wording you have in Bill C-14 as proposed is fairly standard wording for a parliamentary committee report or a review to be undertaken. There's no question that numerous bills that have been passed by Parliament, including in recent years, include a requirement for Parliament to study an issue. It's true that sometimes those studies don't get started, because committees are in control of their own agenda. The matter has to be referred to the committee. The committee takes it on. It's also true that sometimes a committee will undertake a study, and perhaps before the report is tabled there's an election call, or Parliament is prorogued. There are rules to deal with that.

It's also my understanding that when a committee undertakes a study, if they haven't completed the study within the time that the House requires the report to be completed, the committee also can go back to the House and seek an extension of the time in that situation.

So I think there are opportunities within the rules that would allow for and perhaps address the concern that has been raised by the member, but certainly the wording in this clause as introduced is fairly standard in terms of parliamentary committee review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Fraser, does that answer what you were asking?

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Yes, it does.

I don't think I'll be supporting the amendment as worded. I worry about the binding effect of the language. I realize that's the intent of it, of course, but if this is standard language for committees, and we're talking five years after for a review, I think I'd prefer to leave it the way it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Falk.