Justice Committee on Nov. 19th, 2020

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We have—

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

I challenge—

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

We have exhaustively now heard all of the reasons why our opposition colleagues are displeased with your decision, which was properly made, to call the meeting an hour earlier. They have effectively delayed the meeting now to almost 11 o'clock, which I expect was their objective.

If there is a motion to be tabled by Ms. Findlay or anybody else on this issue, I request that they do so now and that we move on so there is no further delay.

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

First of all, it is my understanding that a point of order does not supersede a point of privilege, and I would ask the chair to consult with the clerk on that.

Second, I did put forward a motion and asked for specific action, but I wanted to put my point of privilege in full context, which I was stopped from doing by MP Maloney.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Madame Findlay.

I am just going to ask the clerk to respond to your procedural question there.

Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was telling the chair that there might be a confusion with what happens usually in the House of Commons when there is a motion of privilege that is allowed to be moved by the Speaker of the House. Yes, that takes precedence over almost all other items of business at the House of Commons. However, the same kind of practice or rule doesn't necessarily apply in the committees universe, especially since—and maybe I'm wrong—I don't think that Ms. Findlay has moved a motion of privilege yet.

This is why I was saying to the chair that it doesn't take any precedence right now over all other committee business.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

At this time, Madame Findlay, if you would like to move your motion you're welcome to do so.

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

Yes, I do.

I thought I was giving a way to deal with this here at committee by asking for an apology and asking that this does not happen again in a unilateral decision. I also asked for your confirmation on the record as to whom you had conversations with that led you to make that unilateral decision.

I move a motion to report this matter of privilege to the House—I did say all this before—to report your actions because I haven't heard any response yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Madam Findlay.

Just to clarify, as I said at the beginning of the meeting, under the routine motions that we passed at the beginning of our committee meetings this session, and according to the rules in the House procedure books, I do have the authority to call meetings. The reason I did so was to ensure—as there were concerns raised by members in this committee who have spoken today about having to come in an hour earlier—that everybody had that opportunity. We had agreed that we were going to have a set number of meetings for clause-by-clause. Given the nature of debate at the last meeting, I felt it may be appreciated if members could have that extra hour to continue the debate on this very important legislation.

I do thank the members for your understanding and for being here today. We'll call the vote at this time.

Thank you, Madam Findlay.

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

You prefer to proceed with my motion rather than apologize.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

If there is no further debate, we'll just call the question.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. That defeats the motion. Thank you to the members for your healthy discussion this morning.

We'll go on now to clause-by-clause.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I'm going to be very brief, because I know we want to get to the amendments to Bill C-7, but I'm going to put forward a motion. Before I do, I just want to note that a number of physicians had sought to put forward briefs to this committee to provide their expertise and opinion on the legislation. When they submitted those briefs to the clerk, they were rejected on the basis that they did not meet a deadline, the deadline being, apparently, midnight of November 12. That was not a deadline that I was aware of. It was not a deadline any of our colleagues, certainly on the Conservative side, were aware of. It was not a deadline the physicians were aware of or that the public was informed about either.

I just very simply, in light of this, think it's important that their voices be heard and that this be remedied by simply allowing those briefs that were rejected to be submitted.

With that I would put forward a motion to make those briefs allowable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you for that, Mr. Cooper.

I don't see any....

Ms. Findlay, is that your hand raised to speak to this issue?

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

No? Okay.

I don't see any hands raised. I will call the question at this time.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

The motion is carried.

I appreciate your raising that, Mr. Cooper. Thank you.

We will continue now with Bloc Québécois amendment 3. This is the amendment on page 6.

My understanding is that we had finished our speakers list on that at the last meeting.

Mr. Moore, you'd like to speak to this? Go ahead, sir.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thanks, Madam Chair. I think I was in the midst of speaking to this particular amendment when the last meeting ended.

I think for all of us this is an opportunity to provide some clarity—clarity grounded in witness testimony. Some of the testimony I've been receiving on this bill has been around a phrase that was really under Bill C-14 and is now under Bill C-7, and it's so important. That's the phrase “reasonably foreseeable”. There is no definition of reasonably foreseeable.

I heard argument on this particular amendment, BQ-3, that somehow it could possibly be less certainty. I think it's just the opposite. It's abundantly clear that just the opposite would be true. By we as parliamentarians putting in this amount of “12 months”, we have....

It's paramount to this bill, because it involves which track someone who is seeking medical assistance in dying will be going on. We say in Bill C-7 that if your death is reasonably foreseeable, then there are certain safeguards in place—fewer safeguards than were there under Bill C-14. Under Bill C-14 there were the safeguards that there had to be two independent witnesses and a 10-day reflection period. Other safeguards that in fact were in Bill C-14 are taken out in Bill C-7.

If your death is not reasonably foreseeable, then you're on another track. Those of us who have studied this bill know this. The whole bill turns on reasonable foreseeability. In my readings on this, and from speaking with physicians and hearing and reading briefs from physicians and from those in the disability community, as well as hearing of some cases where I think the definition of reasonably foreseeable has been stretched to its absolute maximum of someone's imagination, I think it is incumbent upon us to provide some degree of certainty over what we mean, as a Parliament, as legislators, when we say reasonably foreseeable.

This particular amendment talks about the “prognosis of 12 months or less” remaining. I think this makes abundant sense. I want to thank the member for bringing it forward.

You know, there are people who are watching, of course, the committee deliberations. I haven't made it a secret that I think there should have been more time to hear witness testimony. I really think, if we're honest with ourselves about what we heard around the table, what we heard from members of the disability community, it was an eye-opener for everybody. Whether we're willing to admit that or not, I think it was an eye-opener. I would like to have explored some of these issues further with them.

We were presented with the perspective that somehow in the physician community there is overwhelming support for this bill, but then, as we studied it, we realized, no, that's not the case. I mean, every one of us, as committee members, received a letter signed by 800 or 900 physicians. That's a huge number. Someone said, well, that's not as many as there are in all of Canada. Of course not; but if 900 physicians sign a letter, then I, as a member of Parliament, am going to take notice of that.

Based on the feedback that I've seen, I really think we're doing our job by being a bit more certain in what we mean. I mean, “reasonable foreseeability”—that kind of language is wide open. To the best extent possible, we should give certainty in our laws.

If you're travelling down the highway and you see a sign that says, "Your speed is reasonable”, what does that mean? Does that mean 70? Does it mean 90? Does it mean 130 kilometres an hour? I know for me, it might mean something different than it means for you. “Be reasonable.”

“Well officer, I was being reasonable.”

“No, you weren't being reasonable.”

Who decides what's reasonably foreseeable?

I'm in New Brunswick and I recognize we're a big country. We had a big discussion this morning on how big the country is and how it covers many time zones. In New Brunswick, on most highways, it doesn't say, “Be reasonable”. It says 110 kilometres an hour. I know if I'm over that, I'm speeding. If I'm at 110 or under, I'm not speeding. I think that makes sense. I also think it makes sense for us to define in some way what reasonable foreseeability means. That's why I'd like to speak in favour of BQ-3.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Monsieur Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank my Conservative colleague, Mr. Moore, for saying that he found the amendment interesting, even though his reasons are different from mine. I would nevertheless like to remind my colleagues who intend to vote against the amendment that if this is something that can bring our Conservative colleagues and I together, even though our respective positions have been at odds from the very outset, it will be a good opportunity for compromise and consensus.

The bill removes the reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion. It is no longer a criterion for access to medically assisted death. However, in order to define the safeguards regime, it is essential to determine whether, when an application for medical assistance in dying is received, the person's death is foreseeable—within 12 months or less—or whether the person has more than 12 months to live. If the latter, the person is subject to the 90-day reflection period. Those who have 12 months or less to live are not necessarily required to comply with the 10-day period nor, if they have followed the applicable provisions, to give their final consent.

In practice, in the field, it allows practitioners to determine foreseeability. It covers all cases and in no way limits access to medical assistance in dying. However, as it is a medical concept, it allows for clarity.

I believe that it makes the bill clearer. I hope that I have convinced my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Monsieur Thériault.

I'll call the question at this time. There are no more people on the speakers list.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll now move on to CPC-2. Mr. Moore, would you like to move this amendment?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to move this amendment.

What our amendment would do here is the following.

Bill C-14 required two independent witnesses. Parliament, in its wisdom, with a brand new regime of medically assisted dying, included that requirement. To me, when you're dealing literally with life and death, it makes sense that there would be that requirement for two independent witnesses.

What Bill C-7 does is remove the requirement for two independent witnesses.

In listening to stakeholder interventions on this bill, particularly the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians, which represents the physicians and others who are dealing with people at end of life, we hear a lot of talk about how it's not a true decision if you don't have appropriate palliative care. A lot of people pay lip service to palliative care, but any one of us, if it's someone we know, is going to want that person to have the best palliative care opportunities as possible in an end-of-life situation.

The Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians supports this amendment that would maintain the requirement for two independent witnesses. You can imagine, with the different dynamics of how, when we're talking about assisted dying and about Bill C-7.... Bill C-7 dramatically—dramatically—changes the law in Canada when it comes to assisted dying because, in fact, now people don't have to be, as we would have thought before, at end of life. They may have a prognosis that says they have 30 years to live or that says they have 20 years to live.

So, in light of that expansion, I think it's important that we maintain safeguards that make sense. To me, it makes abundant sense to have two independent witnesses, to have the request, as the Criminal Code says, “signed...by the person—or by another person under subsection (4)—before two independent witnesses who then also signed and dated the request”.

I can tell you, as someone who has dealt with legal matters before, that you don't want to have one witness to something anyway. Having two witnesses eliminates any degree of uncertainty that could exist. There are always going to be challenges, but I think of...for the.... In Parliament's wisdom under a Liberal majority government when Bill C-14 came forward, there was the requirement.

This amendment is not earth-shattering. It is as modest as possible, and it's saying, “You know what? Let's maintain that safeguard.” That's what this was couched as; it's a safeguard.

We've heard testimony that we're dealing with the most vulnerable in Canadian society, that we're dealing with people who are in very difficult times, that we're dealing with literal life-or-death decisions, so let's maintain the safeguard.

That's why I'm moving this amendment, CPC-2.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much, Mr. Moore.

We'll go to Mr. Zuberi.

Go ahead, sir.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I'd like to speak to this suggested amendment.

Out of full respect for what Mr. Moore has just proposed and after careful consideration, I'll have to speak against the amendment.

I would appreciate it if only these two individuals, these two witnesses, were the final deciders in enacting MAID on the part of the individual, but we know that there are other procedures that must be followed. We know that the witness, for example, does not assess whether or not somebody is eligible for MAID. We also know that the witness doesn't establish whether or not there has been undue pressure or influence on the person requesting MAID.

Because there are other steps in the process, other people who actually go through this process, I have to speak out against this motion and say that we keep it as originally outlined.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thanks, Mr. Zuberi.

I have Madam Findlay next on the list.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm actually quite distressed about this issue. I want to speak in support of the suggested amendment.

I appreciate MP Zuberi's thoughtful comments. However, again, in a past life as a lawyer, I've had the opportunity to draft many a will. When you are dealing with your assets and are of sound mind and body and have full cognitive abilities and you draft a will, at least in British Columbia, you have to have that will witnessed by two independent witnesses who are not mentioned in the will. They don't have to read what's in the will. In fact, they don't need to do that at all. However, they need to be present and they both need to sign the will. That establishes the authenticity of the signature and the intention of the testator.

If we have those safeguards legally in place when someone anticipating death is dealing with their assets, it seems to me that we should, at a minimum, have the same requirement for someone who is anticipating ending their life. It seems to me that one's life is a lot more important than one's assets. Yet, we seem to be throwing away that sort of...again, another safeguard, even though it may not even be the biggest one we're throwing away with this new legislation. However, it's an important one. It establishes that the person who is making this decision is signing on to it and requesting it to support that intention and that authenticity.

I just can't imagine how we would place, in law, a higher onus and a more careful environment for one's assets than one's life.

I would urge members of the committee to reconsider this one. It's not a big amendment—it's a small one—but it's a very important one, and I ask you to really think on that.