Justice Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you for raising that, Mr. Moore.

(On clause 1)

Now that everybody has been sorted out, we left off at the last meeting in a bit of confusion around the language of amendment NDP-2. My understanding is that at around five o'clock today, revised language was submitted. Would members be comfortable if we subbed in this language to replace what was discussed under amendment NDP-2 at the last meeting?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'm just curious. Notwithstanding the fact that it is amendment NDP-2, and I respect that, I'm curious because it now becomes a Liberal amendment. Is it still an NDP amendment to Bill C-7, a Liberal-NDP amendment or a Liberal amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

My understanding is that because the original amendment was moved by Mr. Garrison and what happened at the last meeting was that there were some friendly amendments that Mr. Virani attempted to provide, and then some confusion caused with respect to the language of the friendly amendments, this is what the friendly amendments now look like.

I'm suggesting to committee members that we just use this language to continue the debate on amendment NDP-2. I believe all members have it in front of them.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just for clarification, this stays as amendment NDP-2. It is an NDP amendment. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Yes, that is my understanding.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Go ahead, Madam Findlay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is a similar point to my friend's. It's really a point of clarification. On the agenda that was circulated for tonight's meeting, it says “clause-by-clause consideration”, and the first one says “LIB-1”.

I am rather confused because it was an NDP motion and a friendly amendment. The mover accepted the amendment, so I think it remains NDP-2, an NDP-led amendment. It doesn't suddenly, miraculously, become a Liberal amendment, but I may be wrong. I stand to be corrected, but are we not now debating NDP-2 as amended through a friendly amendment, or is there some different LIB-1?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

That's exactly what we're doing. We're debating NDP-2 with the friendly amendment, but I will pass it to our legislative clerk for clarification.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, you would be correct. The problem is that there is no such thing as a friendly amendment. Either there's an amendment or there is something else, but the concept of a friendly amendment is non-existent, so to speak. That's the reason you have LIB-1 in the agenda, but once we go to the minutes of the proceedings, it will appear as NDP-2 since this is the will of the committee. This is how it's going to appear in the minutes of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you for that.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

It's clear as mud, as with most procedural rules. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Madam Findlay.

I have Mr. Moore next on my list.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Through you, could Mr. Garrison offer any comment on how this amendment changes his amendment?

It's to get your thoughts on the change that's been made and how it improves it or changes what you originally had and what we originally debated.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The wording is, I believe, clearer than what I originally submitted, in the sense that it is more specific about who must consult whom, and who must inform whom of the consultation.

Really, the original intention of my amendment came at the request of the MAID assessors and providers, who felt that the new provision for track two was somewhat unclear about the process of consulting those with extra expertise.

The new wording achieves exactly the same goal, and on reflection, I think it does so in a way that is going to be easier for those who work with the act to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Mr. Virani.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I'm tempted to just say “ditto”, Madam Chair. It's basically just a clarification, observing the spirit of what Mr. Garrison was seeking, where expertise could be availed of when the expert is not physically on the ground in a given location and ensuring that whoever does the consultation with that expert shares the results of that consultation with the other assessor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you for that, Mr. Virani. I don't have any more hands raised for further debate on NDP-2, so I will call the question for voting.

Madam Clerk, if we can record the vote, please, the question is “Should NDP-2 carry?”

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Chair, so that we're crystal clear, is it NDP-2, as amended by the language that was suggested?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Absolutely, this is NDP-2, as amended by the language that was sent via email to all members at 5:02 p.m. earlier today by our legislative clerk.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Now we're moving to PV-2.

Mr. Manly, you can briefly speak to it if you'd like, please.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This amendment was adapted from a request made by Inclusion Canada, and it was supported and sent to me by Graham Morry, the executive director of the Nanaimo Association for Community Living.

I also met with Inclusion BC and several local self-advocates who support this amendment. This amendment is a minor change to the safeguards for natural death not foreseeable. It calls to ensure that the person has been informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including, where appropriate, counselling services, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care and have had consultations with the relevant professionals who provide those services or that care.

I have years of experience working with the diverse abilities community, through skills training and employment programs, with youth with barriers to employment and people with disabilities. As part of that work I connected people with all of the services that are listed above, except palliative care. I was able to make those connections and arrange appointments within a matter of weeks. Given that there is a 90-day period under the safeguard provisions for natural death not foreseeable, I believe there's plenty of time for people to seek out and receive these consultations and that this is not a barrier to people accessing MAID.

If the consultations listed specialists, then I could see how this would be a barrier because, unfortunately, it takes much longer to see a specialist in this country.

I think this is a very reasonable amendment that will give the disability community more confidence in the MAID process. It's important that this community is heard and feels heard and respected. I personally believe that there are adequate safeguards built into this legislation, but I would like the bill to be clearer for people with disabilities and the disability community, so that their concerns are heard.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Manly.

Mr. Kelloway, I have you next on my list.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to take this opportunity to welcome MP Manly to the committee. I appreciate his voice, his viewpoints and his terms of reference, as just stated.

I respectfully oppose this amendment. The bill, as currently written, ensures that individuals are offered consultations with relevant professionals for appropriate services, while at the same time respecting the autonomy of patients to decide whether or not to pursue advice, information or services that may be suggested or offered to them. In addition, Madam Chair, the bill requires that they be informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, that they give serious consideration to those means and that they be offered consultations with professionals who provide that care.

The proposed amendment would force competent persons whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to undertake every consultation proposed to them in order to be eligible for MAID. For those reasons, I respectfully oppose the amendment.

Thank you.