Evidence of meeting #18 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 preamble.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
You are absolutely correct.
No, this one is line 12 on page 2.
The clerk has just received a number of different ones, so he mentioned it was here.
Mr. Rankin, did you make copies of this for everybody?
4:20 p.m.
NDP
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
No, the conscience one is okay, but the one on mental health is apparently coming now.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I believe it was photocopied. It was submitted.
I guess we are just checking on the status of the photocopy.
In terms of where we are right now, I am not clear what we are debating.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
The one on mental health falls right here. It goes before PV-13.
Mr. Clerk, can I ask a question? In the preamble, is it as important to go sequentially as it is elsewhere?
4:25 p.m.
A voice
It is the same principle, yes, unless the committee wants to do otherwise.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
My comment here is this. Mr. Rankin has a number of amendments—not the conscience one, the others—that tie into issues that everybody has been trying to work on. Would the committee be okay—since I think there still may be more discussion to have on that—to move to the other amendments and then come back, separately, to those dealing with palliative care and mental health that weren't put forward originally? Even if we go past that, we would be flexible to put them in the preamble, wherever they really fit. Would the committee be okay with that?
4:25 p.m.
NDP
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay, let's go with what was in the package.
No, I certainly won't forget. It is important to me, too.
We will go back to where the package was, and then we will come back to these when people have had a chance to talk at a break.
Next is Ms. May's PV-13, from the Green Party. She is not here, but the amendment is deemed moved because it was submitted by her on time. It is about replacing lines 22 and 23 on page 1 with the following: “competent adults who have a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes them enduring and intolerable suffering strikes the most appropriate balance be-”.
Is there any desire by anybody to debate this?
Mr. Rankin.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I note that on the following page is our proposal, amendment NDP-5, which I believe to be identical. Am I right?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I think they're both no longer valid because of the decision of this committee to withdraw the words “reasonably foreseeable”, which was the intention of both of them.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
They're in order, because they don't necessarily contradict, but I'd be very happy, if you feel that they should be withdrawn. I mean the NDP one.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I feel that the objective of these preamble positions was to work with the “reasonably foreseeable” language. We've withdrawn the “reasonably foreseeable” language, against my strong objection.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
We retained it, and therefore there's really no benefit in having this.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I agree with that. I don't believe that the Green motion can be withdrawn in that way. It should be voted on. I can't rule it out of order, because the words are actually in the bill. She's substituting one word from the bill for another word from the bill, so theoretically it is receivable, but I think it's easy, if we just debate or vote.
Is there anybody who wishes to debate this one?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment NDP-5 is withdrawn.
Now we come to amendment CPC-35.2.
Mr. Falk.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Yes. Just withdraw it. Thank you very much for you co-operation on that.
Now we come to amendment NDP-6. It is being replaced by a variety of others.
Again what I'd ask is the indulgence of the committee to deal with the others first and then allow us to work on the wording of the revised issues related to palliative care and mental health and aboriginal issues. Then yours will all be accepted to go after we get through that.
Now we get to amendment CPC-35.3.
Mr. Falk.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
I'll just quickly read it: “Whereas it is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views about medical assistance in dying, including the view that participating in a person's death is intrinsically morally and legally wrong;”.
This is an amendment that I would say adds clarity to the fact that people can hold different views about this and that we don't have to all think alike, and that if we don't all think alike, it's not considered hate. I think it's important that it be in here that we don't all subscribe to medical assistance in dying, as being something that for any other particular individual might be morally or ethically acceptable. This just gives them a little bit of protection.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Obviously we've inserted wording in the act making sure that it's crystal clear, for greater certainty, that there's nothing that compels an individual to participate in medical assistance with dying. We're working collaboratively to try to come up with wording in order to ensure that conscience rights are protected.
I don't see how this adds anything to those ends and I don't believe it would be appropriate to discuss morality of that nature in the preamble. I don't think it's rationally connected to the bill itself or anything in the bill, other than in marginally or incidentally being tied to conscience rights. We're trying to deal with that in what I would see as an appropriate way, so I can't support the amendment.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I was going to say much of what Mr. Fraser said, but not quite so eloquently. I agree with what he said. I also have a problem with the word “participating”. It's far too broad.
In any case, I will not support this amendment.