Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue No. 10 - Evidence - June 7, 2016
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 7, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), met this day at 9 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome, everyone. We are here to deal with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying).
I don't know if anyone wants to say anything out the outset before we move into the formal process. No comments with respect to the process?
Senator Joyal: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning.
Yesterday, before we adjourned, I think we had mentioned that senators who might have amendments to consider or to be submitted for consideration would have an opportunity this morning to have an exchange of views in that regard.
Personally, of course I would support amendments in relation to subsection (2) of section 241.2, but I would prefer to reserve the introduction of those amendments at third reading. I'm certainly in a position to proceed with consideration of the bill on a clause-by-clause basis, but as far as I'm concerned, personally, I would prefer to introduce the amendments at third reading.
Senator Baker: Mr. Chairman, I think, from speaking to senators, that there is not an understanding but certainly a reality that there will be many amendments presented at third reading in the Senate. That's where the substance of the amendments will be dealt with and voted on, at third reading, when the bill leaves this committee.
The Chair: Anything else on that?
Senator Plett: On that note, there will be many amendments coming forward from all sides, including some from myself. I don't want to in any way appear that I want to oppose the will of the committee, but for the best part I'm opposed to the bill in its present form. So if we go to clause-by-clause, then, is it best for me to simply declare "on division'' at every clause?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Joyal: That's what I will be doing myself in relation to the sections of the bill. I think that will save the initiative of any senator at third reading to introduce the amendments of that senator.
Senator Cowan: I agree. This is a very serious matter and senators are taking it very seriously. The debate we had last week in the chamber, where all senators had an opportunity to intervene, was a useful exercise. I think that to continue involving all senators, rather than just those who happen to sit on this committee, is the right way to proceed.
I think there are logical groupings or classifications of potential amendments, and discussions are taking place that will enable us to deal in a rational way with amendments on various categories, such as eligibility, safeguards and future studies.
Those discussions are ongoing, and I think the debate, including amendments, is appropriately done at third reading. That's the position I would favour.
Senator White: I will not repeat what others have said. I agree.
The Chair: Nothing else?
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 1 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall clause 2 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall clause 3 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall clause 4 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 9.1 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 10 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause 11 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Joyal: It's important. It's the principle that we adopt the legislation. That might sound ridiculous, but this is what it is.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Senator Joyal: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator Joyal: Mr. Chair, that could be a way of signalling, when you table the report, that the committee was of the opinion that the amendments would be reserved for third reading. It will signal to our colleagues in the Senate that when you report the bill later this afternoon, that's when full debate on amendments will take place. I think a simple sentence like that would reassure that we have considered the initiative of amendments but we have reserved that for third reading. I think that would be helpful for senators.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Cowan, did you have something else?
Senator Cowan: No, that was my point.
Senator Jaffer: I know the bill has been adopted on division, but we have officials here. Is it too late to ask them questions?
The Chair: How does the committee feel about that, bringing officials to the table to ask them questions? We were dealing with the bill clause by clause.
Senator Baker: I think, Mr. Chairman, that we have now gone through all the clauses of the bill, and the bill is now finished here in committee. Even the title has been carried and the bill will be reported to the house.
The Chair: I have one last motion to ask you.
Senator Baker: Yes. So I think we should continue and that the officials not be brought before the committee for questions.
The Chair: That seems to be the majority view.
Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senator Boisvenu, I know you wanted to make a comment.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Chair, when you table the report in the Senate, do you plan to provide strategic guidelines when it comes to presenting changes to this bill? I will explain. I consider that the Senate, until now, has done excellent work on this bill in terms of profound thought. My question is as follows: Are we headed towards a "quilted'' report, meaning that there will be 25 or 30 recommendations or changes, as useful or as minor as they may be? We should focus on core recommendations to demonstrate to the other Chamber that our work has been thorough.
Canadians expect us to send a bill to the House of Commons for which we will have made core recommendations instead of a series of recommendations that mostly serve particular interests rather than the general interests of Canadians.
I will try to make my explanation clear. What interests me the most, basically, is what Canadians expect of us and the way we can significantly improve this bill without getting lost in the details.
If we send a bill to the House of Commons containing 30 odd or 40 odd recommendations, we will lose credibility when it comes to the actual basis of this bill. When you table your bill in the Senate, are you going to make recommendations about how the Senate should deal with these changes at third reading?
[English]
The Chair: No, I don't think I'd be that presumptuous, to be honest with you. The Senate is going to make that determination as a body. I don't think this committee wants, and I haven't heard or witnessed it, to make recommendations on how third reading should be dealt with by the Senate as a whole. Clearly, the intent is to give as many senators as possible, who wish to participate, an opportunity with the debate on amendments and the introduction of amendments at third reading. The committee has made its intentions pretty clear in that respect.
In terms of providing some kind of direction, unless I'm hearing that from the committee, it's certainly not the intent of the chair.
Senator Batters: On that point, with respect to the pre-study, we drafted a pretty significant report that produced 10 recommendations approved by this committee. In that report, we talked about the detailed work we did in that pre-study, with 20 hours of committee study and 66 witnesses. That helps to inform the work we do in the chamber and to show Canadians the important work we have done on this bill.
Senator Cowan: I understand Senator Boisvenu's point, but I think the way to proceed, as I've suggested before, is to circulate amongst ourselves and all of our colleagues, not just those on our committee, the amendments we propose. Many of us have done that and I encourage others to do it.
If we can agree perhaps not on the substance of the individual amendments but on the groupings of the amendments, then we will have a rational and logical approach at third reading.
Many senators had an opportunity at second reading to express their views on the issue. Now we're going to focus on the particular provisions of the bill. If we do that by exchanging information as to potential amendments and treating them in a logical order, then without presuming the outcome of the fate of any individual amendment, it will be seen to be dealt with in a responsible, respectful and logical way. That's what I would suggest we do.
Senator Plett: I certainly agree with Senator Cowan on that issue. I do share Senator Boisvenu's concern that if we have a whole lot of amendments it might be one way for the government just to say, "We'll just stay with what we have.'' So if I could suggest that maybe only my amendment be sent over, that would work.
The Chair: Very helpful.
Senator Joyal: One way for us to have a structured discussion at third reading that would be easy for each and every senator to follow would be, as Senator Cowan has suggested, to group the amendments on the basis of the various clauses and proposed sections of the bill so it's not a free-for-all discussion on every aspect of the bill after a senator stands up, proposes views and exchanges opinions.
The procedural clerk, once the amendments are known, could suggest a grouping of the amendments on the various subjects and titles of the bill so that we could have a structured discussion. For example, if we address the section that Senator Marshall is interested in, which is the regulations, any amendments related to regulations would be grouped together. Amendments dealing with the definition of "grievous and irremediable'' could be grouped together and so on. In that way, when we approach the discussion, any senator who wants to stand up and make comments and express views, at the end of that debate we would have completed the discussion on that subject. Then we could initiate other elements for discussion.
The rationale of our approach for every senator would be easy to understand. Otherwise, we would be jumping from one subject to another. As Senator Boisvenu proposed, it would be much easier after that to determine, by team, which seems to be a priority in relation to the overall scope of the bill and for each senator to determine his or her position. That would be a positive way to approach the debate at third reading. We could exchange views on that between now and the opening of third reading debate, and it would be much easier to reach the objective that Senator Boisvenu expressed, in my opinion.
Senator Baker: This is an extraordinary case of legislation in which the Senate as a whole is interested in each clause of the bill. More senators who are not on this committee are going to propose amendments. We've all received indications from a great many of them that they wish to propose amendments. This is not a case where just the committee decides what happens to the bill, reports back and a vote is held on the report of the committee.
If we were to deal with all of the amendments that the people around this table wish to put, we'd be here for a couple of weeks dealing with those amendments on top of those that would be presented in the chamber at third reading. It would take at least a couple of weeks to do that, and a lot of it would be duplication. We would be disposing partially of a matter here that would be reintroduced in the chamber and would not be dealt with in a proper manner.
I would agree with the system that has been worked out — Senator Cowan and Senator Joyal and the leadership in the Senate — to have all of these matters dealt with at third reading, to permit every single senator to speak and propose amendments, whether they belong to this committee or not. It would avoid the duplication and re-litigation of practically every clause and proposed section of the bill. I say that this is extraordinary because I have never seen in my history on the Hill for over 40 years a situation where so many senators and members of Parliament wish to participate, with a great many of them wanting to put forward amendments.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: I think that Senator Boisvenu raised a very interesting point, and I agree with him. That being said, I agree with the mechanism for structure and cohesion that Senators Joyal and Cowan spoke of. In this manner, we will avoid many repetitions; I also agree with Senator Baker.
[English]
Senator Lankin: I agree with what has been said and won't repeat it. It's a rational approach.
I understand that in order to facilitate that kind of discussion about the groupings of amendments, it will be necessary for the amendments to be shared. I don't know if this was raised yesterday. My apologies, but I left home at four o'clock in the morning and spent eight hours sitting in North Bay waiting for a plane to be fixed. I had to fly on that same plane, which was a bit unnerving. My understanding is that the law clerk indicated he needs permission granted from each senator to share those amendments.
I've done that. I've emailed all of the independent senators and asked if they would give that indication. I've received some from other senators around this table but not all. I'm wondering if we could remind people here and perhaps go so far as to ask the clerk's office to contact senators who have made amendments and ask their permission to share them. That would put us in a position for the work to be done efficiently with all of the amendments, hopefully, or the vast majority of them in front of the people looking at them.
Senator Pratte: We were all proud last week at how the media and the public saw the work that we do — the long Question Period and then the speeches. I want to remind everyone of the respect, rigor and order that we showed. Repeating it at third reading with the amendments and the long hours of work required will be a huge challenge. The challenge ahead will be much bigger, but we will have to show the same qualities that we showed last week. If we succeed in doing that, the Senate will come out of this exercise much more respected than it has been.
We can't underestimate the challenge of so many amendments. We will all be very tired. There is huge risk and the media will be watching us closely. I hope that all of us can show the same respect after so many hours of work under our belts. The challenge is huge and the stakes are high. The important thing is to keep everything as orderly as possible, so the suggestion by Senator Cowan and Senator Joyal is probably key to doing this.
The Chair: Anything else before we conclude?
Senator Cowan: To remind not only everyone around this table but also other colleagues not around the table, the key to making this work is for everybody to submit their proposed amendments to the law clerk, I would suggest, who can coordinate the approach for us and perhaps help if some senators are drafting amendments themselves. They might benefit from the assistance of our professional drafters in the law clerk's office. The result will be a better product for presentation at third reading. I would encourage all of us and our colleagues to follow that course.
The Chair: If there's nothing else, thank you all for a job well done. Our regular meeting schedule begins again tomorrow.
(The committee adjourned.)