Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 12 of 12
David Mark Wells
View David Mark Wells Profile
Hon. David Mark Wells
2016-09-26 9:10
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, members of the House of Commons, for inviting me and welcoming me here today.
I don't know what background you were given for me, but I'll give a short bio of my background in the fisheries. I started in 1979 in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. My first job was driving a forklift on a wharf. In the 36 years after that, I've done a number of things. I've managed fish plants. I've written over 100 reports, including policy and technical reports for clients. I was a member of Canada's NAFO team at the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization; I was a delegate on that team for a number of years. I was a senior policy adviser to the federal fisheries minister and chief of staff to another federal fisheries minister, and I also sat for a couple of years on the Senate fisheries committee. My background is varied and quite extensive in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery and, indeed, in the Canadian and international fishery.
I could spend all day talking about the fishery, but there are a couple of specific things that I think are important and that the committee should consider in their deliberations. The first one is the markets for groundfish. If there is indeed a return of groundfish as a primary species for Newfoundland and Labrador, I think it's important that the committee members recognize that this is not the cod fishery of old, where cod was king. Cod now competes strongly—and in fact is losing in that competition—with other whitefish species like tilapia, pollock, and haddock. For the most part, cod as the primary centre of the plaice species has lost that place. I think that's important to recognize. There's a new paradigm in the marketplace.
Second, there's the different business model that's presented. In the past, you had many hundreds of groundfish plants and many hundreds of landing stations. You no longer have that since the moratorium in the early 1990s. That whole system has collapsed and was removed and replaced by a different paradigm, that of the primary species and shellfish, primarily shrimp and crab. I think that has to be considered as well when the question arises of what happens to the emerging fishery of groundfish, of cod specifically, but other groundfish as well.
The third thing that I think you should give some consideration to is the recreation of the Newfoundland and Labrador cod fishery. As I said in my initial point, it's a different place. We have fewer harvesters. We have an older workforce in the processing sector. The number that was used a couple of years ago for the average age of a fish-processing worker was 56 years. That was a couple of years ago, and you don't have the young people coming into the processing sector like you once had. This will naturally lead to more mechanization, and that changes the paradigm of the processing sector.
There are also restrictions on entry into the fishery with fishing licences, and for those who have licences, restrictions on access to other stocks. That's something I think should be considered. I've mentioned, of course, the number and locations of landing sites and processing sites. The quality degrades significantly the more you truck fish from a landing site to a processing site. I think the most important thing to do is to get the raw material into processing, wherever that is, as quickly as possible.
The last thing I want to mention is the management of the industry. Right now, we have a situation whereby the harvesting sector is managed by the federal government, under federal jurisdiction, while the processing sector—or as soon as the product lands at the wharf—is under the management of the provincial jurisdiction. I think there's a huge wall between those two. It's hard, and in fact almost impossible, to have an integrated industry when you have two jurisdictions managing two critical aspects of the fishery. I might have some comments on that afterwards if people are interested in that.
Thank you very much.
Barry Cooper
View Barry Cooper Profile
Barry Cooper
2016-08-23 11:08
The short answer is yes.
B.C. is the only one I knew about. I didn't know about Manitoba and Alberta. B.C. was very interesting because it was clearly designed by opponents of the CCF to prevent them from gaining office in the 1950 or 1951 election. Social Credit came out of nowhere with W.A.C. Bennett. He was elected to a minority government, and he then immediately, within six months, called another election, changed the electoral system again, and stayed in office for quite a while.
The assumption—and I think it's a valid assumption—is that parties are rational actors and they propose changes in the law in ordinary legislation or in this kind of legislation, which is not ordinary, because they see it will benefit them or their supporters. There's nothing sinister about that. That's the way politics works. I don't think it should be surprising.
Then bringing in a referendum adds another element of what's unknown. Who knows what the result of a referendum would be? All of the misinformation and propaganda that goes on during elections would be intensified, I think, in a referendum campaign.
Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie
View Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie Profile
Hon. Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie
2016-01-26 17:30
Colleagues, we have a quorum. I call the meeting to order.
I want to welcome you to the fifth meeting of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying.
Tonight we have two panels. In the first panel we will hear from two individuals who were involved in the External Panel on Options for a Legislative Response to Carter v. Canada. We have Mr. Benoît Pelletier, who is a member of the external panel, and we have Mr. Stephen Mihorean, who is the executive director of the secretariat.
This session will end no later than 6:30 p.m. You have 10 minutes for your presentation.
 Nancy Ruth
View  Nancy Ruth Profile
Hon. Nancy Ruth
2016-01-26 18:01
Thank you for your work and for being here tonight.
In your issues book in eligibility scenario number 3, you asked Canadians whether they should be able to receive physician-assisted death based on an advance directive. Sixty-two per cent of the balanced representative sample agreed or strongly agreed. Am I correct that this scenario for an advance directive received the highest level of support of any that you proposed?
 Nancy Ruth
View  Nancy Ruth Profile
Hon. Nancy Ruth
2016-01-26 18:02
I'm happy to do so, but my question was on your report, in which 62% strongly agreed or agreed that this was a good thing and that it received the most support. Is that correct?
While the secretariat is finding the answer to that question, I'll go on.
One of the things that amazes me when we talk about the other jurisdictions is that all the Benelux countries, Switzerland, and the states in America that have physician-assisted death could all fit within Canada and we'd still have space, so I think the geographical framework in which we are making these decisions is very important, although we might not have the population that all of those countries combined have.
My question is around wait periods. It's been suggested in other testimony that waiting periods may be a safeguard to consider. There is no way for Parliament to choose a waiting time or periods that will be fair to all, in my opinion. Given the size of this country and the lack of complete medical facilities in many places, is there any reason why timing cannot be decided on a case-by-case basis between an attending physician and the patient, or between the physician and those who hold powers of attorney for the patient with prior directives?
 Nancy Ruth
View  Nancy Ruth Profile
Hon. Nancy Ruth
2016-01-26 18:06
And how many agreed? There were two answers, “strongly agree” and “agree”. What were they combined? My understanding is that they made 62% combined.
Judith G. Seidman
View Judith G. Seidman Profile
Hon. Judith G. Seidman
2016-01-26 18:21
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr. Pelletier.
There have been suggestions—and you alluded to these in your presentation—that the federal government should amend the Criminal Code to allow provisions for physician-assisted death by a regulated health care professional, such as a registered nurse or nurse practitioner acting under the direction of physicians. Might we have the benefit of your view on this?
Judith G. Seidman
View Judith G. Seidman Profile
Hon. Judith G. Seidman
2016-01-26 18:55
If I might, I'd like to ask about recommendations 12 and 13, on the timing of the completion of the declaration of competence, and specifically about advance directives.
You say on page 32 that you “recognize that rules about advance directives vary across the country and, therefore, where a patient wishes to consent to physician-assisted dying in advance”, you recommend “a standardized patient declaration form”.
Could you help us understand your process of thought on this issue?
Judith G. Seidman
View Judith G. Seidman Profile
Hon. Judith G. Seidman
2016-01-26 18:57
Could you give us some idea of the argumentation you went through? You said that the panel itself had difficulty with this issue, and certainly Quebec had difficulty with this issue, because they ultimately took it out of Bill 52. Could you give us some of the input you had when you discussed it in provinces and territories in your committee?
 Nancy Ruth
View  Nancy Ruth Profile
Hon. Nancy Ruth
2016-01-26 19:15
Yes. Thank you for being here.
I want to take your minds to vulnerable persons. What does “vulnerability” mean? Who are vulnerable persons? How will we recognize them? What specific measures do you propose to protect vulnerable persons from being induced to commit suicide at a time of weakness?
 Nancy Ruth
View  Nancy Ruth Profile
Hon. Nancy Ruth
2016-01-26 19:19
On the side, you referred to the social determinants of health, in that there may be other issues that could perhaps help move someone away. That certainly is the position of the last panel, although they didn't talk about it.
Do you want to say more about that, whatever you think about it?
 Nancy Ruth
View  Nancy Ruth Profile
Hon. Nancy Ruth
2016-01-26 19:19
Yes, poverty, lack of access, bad food, no housing, and homelessness.
Results: 1 - 12 of 12

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data