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.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Falk, I'll go back to you to close.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
While I would agree with you that it doesn't add anything, it also doesn't take anything away. It doesn't add anything to the situations that you describe, but what it does add is that people outside of the medical profession, outside of the group of people who might be involved, can hold a view as to this practice, as to medical assistance in dying, without experiencing any negative consequences.
This particular amendment does not apply to people inside the medical field. I'm not looking for conscience rights protection. I'm looking to simply state that you don't have to agree with this, and that doesn't make you a criminal or it doesn't make you hateful. You can have a different opinion.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Understood.
Now that we have gone through that, let's go to vote on CPC-35.3.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we go to CPC-36. I know there was wording that was worked out.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
You'll withdraw it?
Is this where the revised wording is going to go, on line 7 on page 2, and line 12 on page 2?
Mr. Rankin.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I'm pleased to be moving this. It's the work of Mr. Fraser and Mr. Cooper, as well, and it's an objective that we tried to achieve in two phases.
The first was Mr. Fraser's amendment that was accepted for greater certainty, a clause that was added to the bill itself that there was no compulsion to provide or assist in providing medical aid in dying. This would do that by simply acknowledging that everyone has freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the charter: “Whereas nothing in this enactment affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion”. That was an objective we worked out together in this language in order to achieve a clear statement that nothing in the work we're doing would affect a person's conscience rights, which I want to stress was something the Supreme Court itself in Carter emphasized.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I want to say I'm very pleased with the work you all did. It's great to see people working together.
Mr. McKinnon.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I want to ask if you would consider adding the word “expression” as one of the freedoms to make Mr. Falk happy, perhaps?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
“Whereas nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion, or expression”, or “expression, conscience, and religion”. I'm flexible.
I have to leave that up to Mr. Rankin to propose or not as part of his amendment.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Before he subamends—because I don't think he was willing to go that far—he was asking you, as the mover, whether it was something you thought was appropriate, which is what I think Mr. McKinnon was asking.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I'm looking to my two colleagues to see how they react. I don't want to be in contradiction to the position they might take. There is a careful compromise that was reached among three parties, and to add words may be problematic. That's why I'm a little hesitant.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
The bells are going, but we have 30 minutes. Could I have unanimous consent to continue right now?
4:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I was going to say we worked collaboratively to come up with this wording. The point of adding the wording was to link it and to refer to the conscience rights in the preamble. That wording is not in the bill itself. The word “compel” is in there, and we were careful not to include that word for constitutional purposes. I don't see what adding “expression” would have to do with it. I don't think that's been anything that we've heard from the testimony of witnesses that shows it was a concern. I would prefer if we left it this way, but I'll leave it to my friends.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I want to point out, this is a “for greater certainty” clause, in any event, so all those freedoms that Canadians enjoy under the charter are alive and well, whether we refer to them or not.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
As the chair, I would have to struggle with that addition because we did add a clause into the bill that deals with conscience rights, It's perfectly appropriate to insert that in the preamble. That clause had nothing to do with expression.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Oh, you didn't.
Is there debate on this?
Mr. Fraser, go ahead.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I was just going to say that obviously we heard from witnesses who were concerned about this. I think everybody agrees the conscience rights should obviously be protected, and we had to find a way that was appropriate in a Criminal Code amendment to do that. I believe inserting these words into the preamble is the appropriate way, especially since we dealt with it by using the word “compel” and not limiting it to this wording in the bill itself. I believe it was a collaborative effort in order to get the wording that everybody can agree with.
