Evidence of meeting #8 for Justice and Human Rights in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you for that, Mr. Moore.
Absolutely, there's a lot of extra credit to be given to you and in fact to the whole team and everybody who got their amendments in on time.
In doing it virtually, it's logistically a lot easier when members have the amendments in front of them so that all the language is conveyed properly as we're doing virtual moving of motions from the floor. It makes it a lot easier for us to have them before us.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Madam Chair, I believe I just received the new email. It's the body of the email, but I don't think it has the actual attachments.
11:10 a.m.
The Clerk
I will send it with the attachments.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I found it from 6:11 this morning for me.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
11:10 a.m.
The Clerk
Now they're out of the outbox.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Out of the outbox and into the fire.
Could members confirm with me that they received the new email with the attachments?
Mr. Virani, Mr. Manly, Mr. Kelloway, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Sangha, Mr. Garrison, Mr. Maloney and Madam Findlay, you have all received them. Perfect.
Again, just to confirm, PV-4 replaces page 18 and BQ-4 replaces page 21 in the package you would have received.
Pursuant to Standing Order 71(1), consideration of the preamble will be postponed until the very end.
We have a number of amendments. The first one is NDP-1.
Mr. Garrison, would you like to move NDP-1?
November 17th, 2020 / 11:15 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
You've suggested that we are just moving the amendment at this point, so I will move NDP-1 for the consideration of the committee. It deals with the question raised by the Canadian Nurses Association.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Okay. Thank you very much.
The only substantive change here is to add words to an existing proposed subsection at the end—the drafters felt it needed to be there, I guess, in the fullness of the clause—about whether or not the person requires the information. The Canadian Nurses Association talked with us about it and included it in their brief, discussing how nurses and other professionals, including social workers and psychiatrists, often have intimate conversations with patients about their options and about the challenges they are facing. They wanted to make sure that none of the nurses, psychiatrists, social workers or other professionals would be at risk for prosecution under this law for discussing, as an option, medical assistance in dying, whether or not the person specifically requested that discussion or they were simply talking about the kinds of challenges they were facing and the options that were in front of them.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you, Mr. Garrison.
Madam Findlay, is your hand raised on this point?
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Okay.
I have to rule on this amendment, which seeks to amend section 241 of the Criminal Code related to suicide. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771, “...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”
Since section 241 of the Criminal Code is not being amended by Bill C-7, it is therefore my opinion that this amendment is inadmissible at this time.
We will now go on to Bloc Québécois amendment 1.
Mr. Thériault, if you would like to move this—
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
I think the intention of that rule of the House is to make sure that we deal with the issues that are dealt with in the bill.
Clearly, this amendment deals with issues that are before the committee, and clearly, it deals with issues of concern in Bill C-7, so I would like to challenge the chair on the ruling that this amendment is beyond the scope of the bill.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you, Mr. Garrison.
In this instance, the question is whether the ruling of the chair shall be sustained.
It comes to a vote.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Okay.
In that case, then, we will go to debate on NDP-1.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
I expect that this isn't the last procedural discussion or point that we're going to be dealing with today or during the course of these amendments. I'm not in the room, although I understand one of the legislative clerks is there with you. Perhaps he or she could provide some clarification on this issue just so that we don't have to do this twice.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
I'm assuming there was some background to the ruling initially, but since we voted on it, perhaps my question is more properly phrased this way: Is our vote overturning the ruling appropriate, given your interpretation of the admissibility or inadmissibility of the proposed amendment?