Justice Committee on Nov. 19th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you for that.

Can I then turn to Mr. Garrison to see if the proposed friendly amendments fulfill the purpose, or do we need to let this amendment stand for now and re-evaluate the French version?

Mr. Garrison, could you comment on that?

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

Madam Chair, again I have this malfunctioning headset. I apologize.

I believe that the substitute wording does achieve the same goal as my amendment. I don't see any problem if it duplicates the obligation to consult.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

I see two hands raised—Mr. Virani and Mr. Moore. Now Mr. Virani has gone, so it's just Mr. Moore.

Please go ahead, sir.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Speaking to the amendment as amended, I didn't hear much testimony in this regard. It seems the very opposite of a safeguard. I realize this is a moving target, because we're all hearing about this new language and getting a translation of it in English and French in real time.

We've heard how MAID providers, as Mr. Garrison said, are enthusiastic about removing the 10-day reflection period, while palliative care doctors are in favour of maintaining it and having a reflection period. Persons with disabilities are in favour of having a reflection period. Here we have a situation where the legislation requires that there be “a written opinion confirming that the person meets all of the criteria set out in subsection (1)”, and that be provided by someone with expertise in the condition the person is suffering. What this amendment would do is say the MAID provider would get a written opinion from a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner confirming the person meets the requirement.

At first blush, the way I take that, the safeguards were here under Bill C-14, and now we're moving them down in Bill C-7. This amendment just chips away at another safeguard.

We've already discussed, on a previous amendment of ours, when death is not reasonably foreseeable, requiring someone with expertise in the person's condition to be one of the two physicians.

Here again, we're putting the MAID provider in the position of the go-between, between the patient and someone with expertise in the patient's condition. To me, that's not acceptable, and I would be voting against amendment NDP-2 as amended by the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Mr. Virani, go ahead, sir.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

With respect to what Mr. Moore just said, I think that's an inaccurate depiction of what is attempting to be done here. What we're trying to do is to ensure that the expertise that may be less available in different regions of the country is made available through a consultation exercise that would be mandated as part of the legislation under track two. What I understood the departmental officials were saying is that they were providing interpretation. I believe the amendment as it stands, as suggested by the government, would address the concerns that Mr. Garrison has raised, and I would be supporting my amendment to what Mr. Garrison is seeking to do, provided Mr. Garrison is comfortable with it, which I believe he expressed he is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Virani.

We'll go to Mr. Lewis next. Go ahead, sir.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As a quick comment, I find it very interesting that the other three parties, so far today, have taken away a witness and taken away 10 days, and now they want to add another layer. Therefore, it's very confusing on this front.

My question, though, through you to Mr. Thériault, is that I wonder if he's comfortable with this. I don't know whether he has this in French. I just want to make sure that he has the interpretation in front of him, as we have in English.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Lewis.

Go ahead, Madam Findlay.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am confused by this. First of all, if I'm understanding this correctly, Mr. Garrison has accepted the government's amendment to his amendment. Therefore, it's a friendly amendment we're dealing with, with the two together now, presented as amended. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Yes, and the language that was emailed to you is the language of the amendment.

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

I just wanted to be clear on that.

Second, I frankly don't understand this amendment at all.

We tried to put forward that there should be consultation with a person who has expertise. That was defeated. The committee did not accept that this was needed or necessary.

Now we're talking about consulting with someone with expertise outside of the two attending people. Why aren't we just consulting with that third party? It makes no sense to me that either expertise in some nature.... “Expertise” isn't even defined, so we're not necessarily talking about a specialist. We're talking about someone with expertise in that condition. There can be people who have a lesser designation than specialist who have expertise in a certain condition. Maybe they have a lot of patients with that condition, or whatever. With the new language, it can be a doctor or nurse practitioner, etc., with that expertise.

However, if we're going to consult with them, I don't understand why there wasn't support before for consulting with them and having them as one of the two people. This makes no sense to me. Again, by doing it outside those who are tending to the patient, how is it conveyed back to the patient? How is that dealt with? There are no specifics. We'd be relying now on a second-hand conveyance of the expertise. If you can consult with someone with expertise, then that should be one of the two people dealing directly with the patient.

I'm not in favour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

We'll go to Monsieur Thériault next.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Chair, if the French wording is not changed and remains as is in black and white, I will not be able to vote because it's not clear. It is not an accurate translation of the English wording, and there appears to be some repetition. I would have to abstain from voting.

Moreover, as Mr. Garrison has told us that this is a housekeeping amendment and changes nothing, I would be tempted to keep the bill because the French wording is very shaky.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Monsieur Thériault.

Mr. Garrison, go ahead, sir.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think if I hold the headset cord correctly, it may continue to work.

I have two things. To Madam Findlay, this is a safeguard added to the second track in the previous amendment we were voting on. Expertise was for the first track, so that is why there is the difference.

On the question of translation, I believe that at the end of the committee process we will authorize reconciliation of the two texts to make sure that they accurately reflect the sense of the bill. There is a chance, before this is referred to the House, for that reconciliation of the translations to occur.

I'm not saying there's no change here. It's clarifying something that was already put into the process by Bill C-7 about exactly who has to consult and how that consultation should be done. This is a problem that we run into in rural and remote communities, where we do not always have people with the expertise. This will require a consultation to take place. Yes, it may be with someone who is not even in the same community, but with someone who has experience and expertise with the condition that's causing the suffering. It's just clarifying those consultation procedures.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

I understand our legislative clerk would like to speak to some of your comments with respect to the translation.

Go ahead, sir.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, Mr. Garrison, when an amendment is proposed in committee in both official languages, we have no say on the matter when it comes to translation at the end of the process. It would be adopted by the committee in both official languages as is.

Now if you were to propose the amendment in just one language, as is possible, we would send that that version to our translator at the House of Commons, and the translator would make sure that the French and English correspond.

If you propose the amendment in both official languages, the legislator has spoken and it is the will of the committee to adopt both versions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Go ahead, Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Of course, because I am not completely fluent in both official languages, I moved my motion originally only in English. I think we can adopt the English text, if that's what the legislative clerk is suggesting, and then have the two reconciled. That's fine with me, although I know it may not be satisfactory to Mr. Thériault.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Monsieur Thériault, go ahead, sir.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Chair, in that case I would have no choice but to abstain. I could not vote on a clause that is not clear in my language.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Monsieur Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

And it was not moved in my language.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Sorry, could you repeat that, sir? I missed the translation.