Jody Wilson-Raybould

[Justice, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question allows me to highlight the new process that the Prime Minister put in place for Supreme Court of Canada appointments. We respect the idea of having an open and transparent process to gain access to applications from a diverse group of qualified jurists from across the country. We respect the principle of regional representation and I am confident that when the independent expert panel brings back names to me to make recommendations to the Prime Minister, there will be high calibre Atlantic Canadians on that list.

[Justice, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that our government introduced a process for the appointment of Supreme Court of Canada judges, to make it open and transparent. I look forward to the independent expert panel bringing back very qualified candidates, respecting regional representation, who are functionally bilingual, and represent the highest standards of jurists in this country. I know there will be a number of jurists from Atlantic Canada who will find themselves on that list.

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), 74 candidates were recommended by the independent advisory committees between November 4, 2015, and June 15, 2016.

Regarding part (b), the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, which administers the federal judicial appointments process, has received no direction from the Minister of Justice to pause the process of considering potential candidates by advisory committees.

[Justice, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was pleased to introduce a new process for the appointment of Supreme Court justices to make it open and transparent.

I was very pleased to be able to appoint a panel to review applications. I look forward to receiving those applications, two of which will be from Atlantic Canada. No decision has been made, but we are confident that we will appoint a diverse, functionally bilingual, high-calibre jurist to the Supreme Court of Canada. I look forward to participating in that.

[Physician-Assisted Dying, June 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we take our responsibilities incredibly seriously. The Supreme Court of Canada said two things in the Carter decision: it said that an absolute ban on medical assistance in dying is unconstitutional; and it left it up to Parliament to determine what the appropriate national regime is for medical assistance in dying. We have heard from a vast majority of people. We are taking the responsible approach. We are legislating for all Canadians, and I look forward, hopefully soon, to having legislation in place on medical assistance.

[Physician-Assisted Dying, June 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have said many times in the House that I am confident that this bill is constitutional. We have worked hard on an extremely complex issue to find the right and necessary balance between personal autonomy and protecting the vulnerable. There are multiple objectives contained within Bill C-14. It is the right approach for Canada right now, and we look forward, hopefully soon, to having our legislation in place.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), June 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, in the compressed timeline I have to respond, I have spoken to reasonable foreseeability in the chamber.

Reasonable foreseeablity is something that has been used quite regularly in the Criminal Code. We placed it in the legislation to inject what we feel is a necessary flexibility to provide medical practitioners with the ability, based on their direct relationship with their patient, to determine when that patient would be eligible for medical assistance in dying. In other words, they would determine when their patient's death has become reasonably foreseeable.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), June 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, around reasonable forseeability and expanding the eligibility criteria with respect to medical assistance in dying, there are any number of situations that could arise with a broad eligibility criteria such as the member suggested, for example, looking at persons who have recently become disabled in a car accident and have become quadriplegics.

We have considered all of the different machinations in what safeguards should, and need to be in place, and the risks associated with a broadening of an eligibility criteria. For a recently disabled person, I would submit that a 10-day reflection period is not a substantive reflection period to respond to such a circumstance. We need to proceed with caution.

We will have a continuing conversation as a country, and we will ensure we continue to have these discussions.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), June 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I acknowledge my colleague across the way for his ongoing commitment and discussion on this important issue.

My words today were in speaking to a motion to the other place in terms of their thoughtful considerations with respect to Bill C-14.

The member opposite speaks to the risks, speaks to the broadening of the criteria in terms of one of the amendments that was sent back. What I was expressing in my comments were the serious concerns that we have. If we were to broaden the eligibility criteria, there would not be the necessary safeguards in place to account for that broadening of the criteria.

What I sought to articulate in my comments were examples highlighted from other jurisdictions, factual examples where a broad criteria has resulted in patients accessing medical assistance in dying in the cases that my colleague across the way speaks to, in terms of individuals who are suffering from mental illness alone. Recognizing that there are other remedies, certainly, we trust medical practitioners to perform their duties responsibly in servicing their patients in the best and most appropriate manner.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), June 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly acknowledge my friend across the way for the work and the commitment he has made with respect to Bill C-14 and this discussion.

While I acknowledge the quote that he conveyed from Douglas Grant from the regulators, I would like to counter that discussion with a comprehensive response that we have received from the Canadian Medical Association and physicians across the country who look at the language of reasonable foreseeability and the further definition that we provided in terms of eligibility around “grievous and irremediable” as providing clarity, as providing medical practitioners across the country with the ability, based on their direct relationships with their patients, to determine whether or not a patient is eligible for medical assistance in dying.

We believe that flexibility is the most appropriate response, and the medical practitioners have confirmed that with us.