Bill C-14 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create exemptions from the offences of culpable homicide, of aiding suicide and of administering a noxious thing, in order to permit medical practitioners and nurse practitioners to provide medical assistance in dying and to permit pharmacists and other persons to assist in the process;
(b) specify the eligibility criteria and the safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person;
(c) require that medical practitioners and nurse practitioners who receive requests for, and pharmacists who dispense substances in connection with the provision of, medical assist­ance in dying provide information for the purpose of permitting the monitoring of medical assistance in dying, and authorize the Minister of Health to make regulations respecting that information; and
(d) create new offences for failing to comply with the safeguards, for forging or destroying documents related to medical assistance in dying, for failing to provide the required information and for contravening the regulations.
This enactment also makes related amendments to other Acts to ensure that recourse to medical assistance in dying does not result in the loss of a pension under the Pension Act or benefits under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act. It amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that no investigation need be conducted under section 19 of that Act in the case of an inmate who receives medical assistance in dying.
This enactment provides for one or more independent reviews relating to requests by mature minors for medical assistance in dying, to advance requests and to requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition.
Lastly, this enactment provides for a parliamentary review of its provisions and of the state of palliative care in Canada to commence at the start of the fifth year following the day on which it receives royal assent.

Justice

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are frustrated that my colleagues and I have been so diligent in vocalizing the concerns of disabled Canadians and medical professionals in regard to Bill C-7. However, the Liberal government ignored its own legislation to review Bill C-14; held the House hostage in May and June; prorogued Parliament in August; limited the justice committee to four hearings, blocking written submissions; and chose not to appeal the deadline imposed by the Quebec superior court.

Why does the Prime Minister not want to create legislation that shows compassion for all Canadians?

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, there are few, if any, issues that have come before Parliament that more clearly touch on our fundamental values as Canadians than medical assistance in dying.

Let me start today by restating what I said at the beginning of my speech in favour of Bill C-7 at second reading. When it comes to medical assistance in dying, the priority for New Democrats has always been, and remains, avoiding unnecessary suffering being inflicted on those who are already afflicted with terminal illnesses, and at the same time also avoiding prolonging suffering for the families who must bear witness to the suffering of their loved ones.

Here we are in late December, up against the deadline set by the Superior Court of Québec in the Truchon case. It does not really matter whose fault that is. Some of this delay was obviously due to COVID, but a good measure of the delay was due to the Liberals proroguing Parliament.

To me, it is manifestly unacceptable to hear some members arguing that we do not have to meet the deadline because it would “only affect Quebec.” In any case, the time has come for the House to act on Bill C-7. It is also time to act on another task as well. Not only has our consideration of the bill been delayed, but equally important, the five-year statutory review of the original medical assistance in dying legislation, Bill C-14, is now long overdue.

Members will know that some of us called on the government to get this review under way much earlier this year, so that it could have helped guide the consideration of Bill C-7. Again, COVID and prorogation intervened.

When it comes to medical assistance in dying, Parliament had two tasks before us. One was the need to amend the MAID legislation to conform with the charter as required by the Superior Court of Québec ruling. This ruling found the current law too restrictive, and that was in fact the very reason New Democrats voted against Bill C-14 at the original vote.

Making MAID laws conform to this ruling is, of course, the central purpose of Bill C-7. However, as I said, the second task with regard to medical assistance in dying was to conduct that statutory review of the broader issues, having had four years of experience with it.

As a result of growing increasingly concerned while waiting for the government to get the review under way, on October 8, I introduced Motion No. 51. My motion called for the creation of a special committee of the House of Commons to conduct this review. Special committees have some advantages when it comes to reviews of this kind. They are granted comparatively unlimited resources by the House and are not bound by the four hours per week schedule specified for standing committees, like the justice committee.

They are mandated to work on a single task, so they are not subject to the kinds of delays that can occur in standing committees, like the justice committee, where dealing with legislation must always, necessarily, take precedence over studies. Of course, special committees can make recommendations for actions needed beyond the confines of Bill C-7 or beyond the narrow court decisions.

Indeed, it was a special committee that made the original recommendations to the House that became Bill C-14. To be clear, this broader legislative review of issues arising out of medical assistance in dying was mandated in the original legislation and was supposed to start last June at the latest. It should have taken place, and would have taken place, whether or not there was a court decision in Quebec.

Bill C-14 required that the review specifically look at the question of advance requests or advance directives, requests from mature minors and requests where mental illness is the sole underlying condition. However, New Democrats have argued from the beginning that the mandate of that statutory review was missing a key element. That is why my motion called for a special committee with an expanded mandate to include the question of whether the safeguards in our medical assistance in dying legislation are adequate to protect the most vulnerable among us.

I am happy to say that I believe all parties now seem to agree that the mandate should be expanded to include this question. I am still not sure why the government is so averse to a special committee, but I think it will find that members of the justice committee would reluctantly agree to the justice committee undertaking this review, as long as it had the expanded mandate. Though, of course, I will still worry that time, resources and the agenda of the standing committee may be too limited to do justice to the task.

Previously I have spoken about the issues of medical assistance in dying on very personal and very practical terms. I have spoken about my mother's fears of being trapped in a hospital bed while suffering and no longer knowing her family. I have spoken of a friend who chose medical assistance in dying much earlier than she might otherwise have done out of fear of losing her capacity to give final consent because of her growing brain tumour.

Now, in addition to these personal experiences, as a member of the justice committee I have had the privilege of talking to dozens of Canadians over Zoom, of hearing dozens of witnesses in committee and of reading even more briefs on medical assistance in dying.

I have been particularly and equally touched by the stories of families whose loved ones chose medical assistance in dying over prolonged suffering and the stories from those medical practitioners who provide that medical assistance in dying. My conversations with these families and with these doctors helped me understand how medical assistance in dying operates in real life. These conversations have made it clear to me that the current legislation has some unintended and cruel consequences. This was evident even before the Quebec court ruling.

Those who listened carefully to the terminally ill, their families and the practitioners providing medical assistance knew well that our current law often inflicts and prolongs unnecessary suffering. Bill C-7 addresses three of those cases of unnecessary and prolonged suffering. While it was not strictly required to do so by the Truchon decision, I rightly think the bill does take on that task of reducing suffering.

Most important to me, Bill C-7 will end the spectre of patients like Audrey Parker of Nova Scotia, who felt she had to leave early and choose an earlier date for receiving medical assistance in dying because of her fear of losing the competence required to give consent at the moment the assistance is rendered. Audrey Parker felt she had no choice but to miss one last Christmas with her family. I think we all owe her thanks for making her personal struggle public so that others would not have to face the same awful choice.

Bill C-7 will fix this by waiving the requirement for final consent for those already assessed and approved for medical assistance in dying. This waiver of final consent takes away that need for any person, and let me stress this again, who has already decided to request medical assistance in dying and has already been assessed and approved for that assistance. It will prevent them from having to go early in order to avoid the loss of competence that would prevent them from receiving the end to their suffering and the end to their family's suffering that they desire.

Whether one supports waiving the requirement of consent at the moment assisted dying is provided or does not support that, Bill C-7 does not open the door wide to advance consent or advance directive. It is simply providing that waiver of final consent for those already assessed and approved. The topic of advance requests remains part of the mandate of the special committee I would like to see doing the statutory review.

This is a question of great concern to many of my constituents. In fact, it is the single thing I have heard the most about from my constituents. They are concerned about maintaining their autonomy and decision-making over how their end of life takes place. They want to make sure that their wishes are respected. I have to say that my discussions with practitioners providing medical assistance in dying have persuaded me that this question is not so simple as it appears on first look. As I have said, this will remain an important question for a statutory review to address, but it is not part of Bill C-7.

A second cause of unnecessary suffering that Bill C-7 will also eliminate is the mandatory 10-day waiting or, as it is sometimes called, reflection period. The evidence provided in the report of the Association of Medical Assistance in Dying Assessors and Providers shows that nearly half the patients receiving medical assistance in dying chose to do so on or about the 11th day. What does that tell us? It tells us that their suffering was prolonged simply to meet that statutory waiting period of 10 days.

I know concerns have been raised by members of Parliament about people changing their minds, but the statistics on people changing their minds about medical assistance in dying show that people do that during the assessment period, before they are actually approved. What the waiting period does is it makes patients hold out for days longer on what has already been assessed as intolerable suffering just to meet the statutory requirements. All patients are made to spend this time suffering and few if any are actually reflecting on the situation, because at this point to relieve the pain they are heavily sedated. If we truly respect the agency of patients who are terminal and suffering, then we ought not to impose a cruel waiting period.

Let me say as an aside how disappointed I have been to hear some members of Parliament alleging that Bill C-7 somehow creates the possibility of what they call “same-day dying”. It does nothing of the kind.

That would only be possible if the medical professionals involved skipped their duties and their professional responsibilities as prescribed in law and in their own professional codes of conduct. That is what it would take to produce such a result. Making this false allegation is insulting to the patients and the medical practitioners who provide this service. It demonstrates how little those who use that term know about the actual process of medical assistance in dying.

Another misleading “fact” that has often been cited in this debate occurs when members ask how can anyone support Bill C-7 when “doctors oppose it”. What those members are referring to is a petition submitted to the justice committee, a petition signed by more than 700 physicians. What this selective siding ignores is that the Canadian Medical Association, which represents more than 70,000 doctors, has come out squarely in favour of Bill C-7. That is nearly 100 times as many doctors as those who signed the petition.

Let me point to another positive change in Bill C-7 that reduces suffering, which has been willfully misconstrued: the reduction of the requirement that two independent people witness the signature of the patient requesting medical assistance in dying.

This change was suggested by practitioners as a result of the experience they have already had with Bill C-14. Clinicians and families often found the process of identifying a second independent witness was difficult, especially in rural and remote areas, because of the requirement of independence. It often also raised privacy concerns, as it involved an extra person in this process.

We must remember that the purpose of witnesses is only to verify the identity of the person making the request. Two independent medical assessors have already been involved each and every step of the way throughout the process. They have already had to certify the patient's eligibility for MAID. Practitioners have said this second witness provision is unduly restrictive and, again, often only ends up unnecessarily prolonging suffering.

At this point, I want to turn to some of the specific concerns about Bill C-7 that were raised at the justice committee.

The first concern is about the removal of the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable in order for someone to proceed with medical assistance in dying. Of course, this provision was removed by the Quebec court decision, not by Bill C-7.

Bill C-7 makes sure that medical assistance in dying legislation conforms with the decision of the court. It said limiting medical assistance in dying to cases where death was imminent was a violation of the Charter rights of patients whose death might not be on the immediate horizon but whose condition left them in intolerable suffering.

Bill C-7 creates a second track for those whose death is not imminent and specifies a second set of requirements and safeguards appropriate for the second track. The decision about whether the reasonably foreseeable provision should be removed is not made by Bill C-7. It is a decision made by the Quebec courts. I believe this is consistent with the Carter decision.

I want to take a moment to address those who say there is no need to meet the deadline opposed by the Quebec Superior Court. I remind them that without Bill C-7, those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable will come under the existing requirements immediately and will be without any of the conditions specified in Bill C-7 as appropriate for the second track. Regardless of whether people believe the safeguards are adequate, I ask them to understand that if we do not meet the deadline, there are no safeguards in the second track at all.

I believe most of us accept that there are good reasons to differentiate between the two tracks and to have additional requirements appropriate for those whose death is not imminent. Bill C-7 rightly sets out a more restrictive process and therefore requires more time for assessment and decision-making for the second track.

In addition, it does not set a reflection period of 90 days. It sets an assessment period of 90 days. That is an important distinction. It is not a maximum of 90 days; it is a minimum of 90 days. I do not think we should get confused on that point.

The second concern I want to address is a very important concern of the disability advocates: with the removal of the requirement that death be imminent, there will be pressure on the vulnerable in our society to choose medical assistance in dying.

Nothing in Bill C-7 changes the very high standards set in the original Bill C-14 for receiving medical assistance in dying. To receive this assistance, patients must have a condition that is incurable, must be in an advanced state of irreversible decline and must face intolerable suffering. This means Bill C-7 does not open the door wide, as some have suggested.

However, let me be clear here. I do not, in any way, wish to dismiss the concerns of the disability community over their vulnerability. That is why I have been calling for an expanded mandate of the statutory review so that we require it to consider the question of whether safeguards to protect the vulnerable in our medical assistance in dying legislation are adequate. Again, this may require us to look beyond the narrow confines of the medical assistance in dying legislation to other health legislation and other social support legislation.

That is why my colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, and I have just delivered today a joint letter to the Minister of Disability Inclusion calling for a new national income support program, set at $2,200 per month, for all persons with disabilities. This would be a single, national program to replace the patchwork of provincial programs that rarely come close to the amount that we have all now acknowledged with CERB as the minimum necessary. Providing such a benefit would be an important step toward a guaranteed basic income for all Canadians. More importantly, in the context of the bill, this would provide support at a level that would help avoid placing persons with disabilities in a position where dying looks like a better option than living without the supports they need.

Failure to provide the necessary resources to ensure that everyone can enjoy full and equal participation in life is a long-standing and ongoing black mark on the federal Parliament and all provincial parliaments. We have only to look at the failure to deliver additional assistance promptly to persons with disabilities during this pandemic to remind ourselves how often we forget about those living with disabilities.

As we consider how to recover from the pandemic, I hope we can adopt this proposed federal program that would provide all people with disabilities the equivalent of a living wage. This would be an important step toward relieving the fears about having to make a terrible choice eventually with medical assistance in dying.

Given the speeches from all parties stressing the need to take the situation of people with disabilities seriously, and in light of the Quebec Superior Court decision, I believe we should be able to marshal immediate support for this proposal in a minority Parliament. It would be an important step in mending the gaps in our social safety net that COVID has revealed. COVID has taught us that we can roll out income support programs quickly when we really want to do so.

As I near the end of my time, let me take a moment to address one last phenomena I observed in our committee discussions and one that I found very disturbing. It was the tendency of some members to mix together issues of suicide and medical assistance in dying. These are two completely different issues, distinct both medically and morally.

Medical assistance in dying does not provide a way to take one's own life. The testimony from physicians and families involved in medical assistance in dying told us very clearly that no one involved in medical assistance in dying wants anyone to die: not the families, not the physicians and certainly not the patients themselves. Medical assistance in dying is about those who are already dying and are far along that path and in intolerable suffering. It is about them being able to have control about how their life ends and when that suffering for them and their family will come to an end. It is not about choosing to die.

The New Democrats continue to support Bill C-7, as it contains significant measures that will help bring an end to unnecessary suffering and provide the necessary safeguards in the second track for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It will do so in time to meet the deadline hopefully imposed in the Truchon decision.

We will continue to demand that we get started on the statutory review, which should already have begun. Proceeding with Bill C-7 without proceeding with the review is only getting half the job done on medical assistance in dying. At the same time, it potentially undermines public support for medical assistance in dying, which so far has only continued to grow.

In conclusion, I want to say again that I believe as a society we must do a better job of providing for the most vulnerable among us and those who are differently abled. In the case of the tragic deficiencies in end-of-life care and in the lived experiences of people with disabilities, COVID has taught us how much further we have to go toward a fully compassionate and fully equal society. I urge all parliamentarians not to ignore those lessons.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the last stage of debate before Bill C-7 is passed.

I would like to remind members of the first thing I said when we began the clause-by-clause study of the bill. I said that we must not forget that while we are debating, people are suffering and are waiting for the results of our efforts. Today, I would say that they want to know whether we will take care of them and listen to their voices, or whether they will once again have to bear the burden of going before the courts to have their final wishes heard.

I also said that I was certain, from the start of the debate on Bill C-7, that all parliamentarians in the House were caring and compassionate, but that we could not be caring and compassionate if we infringed on the autonomy of a person who is dying or suffering and has reached their breaking point.

I have to say that I am disappointed by the Conservatives' attitude. It is one thing to want to make a point, but it is another to engage in what amounts to filibustering. However, what bothers me even more is that they seem to be claiming that they know better than the person who is dying what is best for them. I cannot make such a claim. I prefer to give the person the choice, and my role as a legislator is to preserve that choice.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are practising government-imposed moral paternalism, which is odd because they are economic libertarians. That means they want less government intervention in the economy, yet they also want full government intervention in a matter as intimate as our own death.

The Conservatives are practising government paternalism, but they are not alone, because we have heard some practitioners say and demonstrate that in 2020, they still apply a medical paternalism that I would describe as appalling. Why on earth are these omniscient practitioners doing that? How are they better equipped than a person who is dying or a suffering patient who has reached their threshold of tolerance to know what is best for them? Only God knows, but they do not mention that.

Those few medical practitioners continue to frustrate us to this day because they practise in Quebec. Five years after Quebec's Act Respecting End-of-Life Care was passed, they consider palliative care and medical assistance in dying to be mutually exclusive, when they are and should be complementary, since medical assistance in dying is part of the care continuum under Quebec's end-of-life care legislation. However, that is still not enough. They believe that the patient must change their mind if they request medical assistance in dying, and they say they manage to make them change their minds. They have no qualms about saying that they would not want to refer the request for medical assistance in dying to a doctor who can perform the procedure, even though that is enshrined in Quebec law. They say they are obviously doing it for the good of the patient, even though they refuse to listen to the patient and heed their wishes.

That is the testimony that provides the basis for the Conservatives' filibustering. They claim to know better than the dying patient what is best for them. That is not caring. That is a violation of the principle of self-determination.

I will let the 88% of Quebeckers who support the freedom to choose medical assistance in dying judge the Conservative Party's position and attitude. However, what I heard in committee worries me, because five years after Quebec adopted its end-of-life care legislation, some institutions can and do circumvent the law, as was the case before the Morgentaler decision, to hinder someone from receiving medical assistance in dying. I was shocked to hear that.

If a patient is no longer receiving aggressive treatment and has finally been given the right to die, which is known as palliative care, I hope that this patient will not be subjected to aggressive palliative care.

Dying with dignity implies respect for human dignity. It is not an intellectual conceit; it is intrinsic. Treating people as ends in themselves and not as mere means involves respecting a person's capacity for self-determination, free will and freedom to choose. A person must never be subjected to an analysis or an ideology, religious or otherwise. A person is the master of their own destiny.

Furthermore, self-determination is enshrined in law. No one can undermine our intellectual or bodily integrity or our self-determination without our free and informed consent, even in an emergency.

That means that when a sick patient is at their most vulnerable, when they are suffering and dying and have reached the point where they can bear no more, the person at their bedside must not impose their own ideology on that person, be it religious or otherwise.

That is why they say in clinical ethics that the patient comes first. The patient's wishes, which are based on how much they are suffering, need to be heard. Palliative care providers should not see medical assistance in dying as a failure. If a palliative care patient, who is irreversibly committed to dying, wakes up one morning completely at peace and ready to let go, then the palliative care provider should not see that patient's request for medical assistance in dying as a failure.

I have said it before and I will say it again: I hope that, when they are on the threshold of death, all my parliamentary colleagues will be able to feel that peace and let go with a clear conscience. That is the best we can hope for for any human being.

Bill C-7 responds to the Gladu-Truchon ruling. The courts determined the appropriate response by examining the limits of the government's power to intervene in end-of-life decisions in Carter and Gladu-Truchon. The courts told us that the provisions of the Criminal Code infringed on the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

They infringe on the right to life—that says a lot—because they cause people who are suffering to shorten their lives through suicide, which is decriminalized in Canada, rather than waiting for the moment when their threshold of tolerance is reached. This is significant.

During the committee deliberations, I heard people say that 90 days is not long enough. In saying that, they were assuming that someone who has a degenerative disease of any sort might wake up one morning and suddenly decide they want medical assistance in dying, without having ever discussed it with their doctor or health care professionals throughout their care process. It is as though they thought this all came out of a Cracker Jack box one morning and the person was wondering whether they could access medical assistance in dying that very moment or whether 90 days was enough time to be sure of that decision. That is not how it happens in real life.

The right to life is not something to be cast aside lightly. People want to live as long as possible. People want to live, and when they receive a diagnosis and are in a suicidal state, they can be treated to reverse that state. When someone finds out that they have cancer they are not going to tell their doctor that they want medical assistance in dying. They are going to ask what can be done to help and when their treatment will begin. Sometimes it takes 15 or 20 years, and other times the cancer is more aggressive, but there comes a point when the doctor announces that all treatments have been exhausted and it is time to begin the palliative stage. In any case, this does not happen overnight.

If someone who receives such a diagnosis tells their doctor they want medical assistance in dying, the doctor will prescribe anti-depressants and tell the patient that they will take care of them. They will tell the patient to get their affairs in order and talk to the family. They are not going to provide medical assistance in dying. That is not how it works. Sometimes in committee I would hear people describe catastrophic scenarios out of some sort of house of horrors, as if that were how things happened.

Bill C-7 is based on principles the Bloc Québécois believes in. Who can dispute the fact that death is the most intimate moment in a human being's life? Neither the state nor my neighbour will die in my place. The decision can only be made by the person requesting it, not by the family or anyone else.

The criteria must of course be met. We in the Bloc Québécois have confidence in our health workers. We have confidence in our health professionals. There is something that I find rather perplexing. Just this Tuesday, the Conservatives supported our motion that commended the work, dedication, care and concern of health workers and health professionals. However, when it comes to the most intimate decision a human being can make, to decide one's own death and not to suffer, and when it comes to respecting a person's right to self-determination, the Conservatives no longer have confidence in them. They believe that there are people who may have bad intentions.

If there are people who are not well intentioned or caring in the health system, let us show them the door right away. I would also say that if there are any health professionals who claim to know better than the patient who is at the end of the process and who has made the choice that is right for them, it is time they reflected or took a course on respect for human dignity.

Throughout this debate, I have gotten the sense that some people are against freedom of choice. When people support freedom of choice, that does not mean they want to get rid of palliative care and go around signing all kinds of people up for MAID. What we are saying is that an individual who wants to die at the end of the process should be able to do so. MAID should apply to people whose suffering is intolerable and cannot be alleviated.

Yes, Bill C-7 leaves a number of things unresolved. There are two main elements here. One major improvement is that Bill C-7 tossed out the reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion, which is not a medically valid criterion. That is understandable. However, it was retained for use in defining two safeguards. I would have liked to see a more specific definition of “reasonably foreseeable death”.

For terminally ill people, there is a safeguard of up to 10 days, and a second consent may not be necessary. In cases like Ms. Gladu's, Mr. Truchon's and Ms. Carter's, where death is not reasonably foreseeable, it is supposed to be 90 days. I would have liked some clarification on this criterion because doctors need things to be clear and specific. I do not know why this criterion was brought back. There is always room for improvement.

The bill removes the need for second consent to put an end to people's suffering when palliative care no longer eases their pain, when death is irreversible and the process has already begun. That seems like a good thing to me.

Bill C-7 obviously excludes mental illness as an eligible reason when it is the sole underlying medical condition. It also does not cover all of the issues associated with advance requests, particularly in the case of neurodegenerative diseases, or the issue of mature minors.

Under Bill C-14, a parliamentary committee was to examine those provisions and the matter of palliative care last summer. Today, the Bloc Québécois is calling for that review to begin as soon as possible, not in five years or even one year, because there are people who are suffering. What is more, this time, we must not make them bear the burden of having to go to court to be heard. Who is more vulnerable than a person who is enduring unbearable pain, who has reached or is about to reach the limit of what they can endure and who has to decide to go before the courts to make their voice heard?

It is time for us as legislators to take up the torch, show some leadership and do our job. The courts can issue orders for us to do something, but obviously when they do there is a fixed timeline. Right now, we have a deadline to meet, December 18. I really hope that we can pass this bill and begin the review process so that we can deal with the sensitive issues that are not addressed by Bill C-7.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I come at it from the very same position as my hon. colleague from Brantford—Brant. I am choking up. I know both sides of it. Right next door to me, my father-in-law is in palliative care. We have been looking after him for six months. I also have a 32-year-old daughter who lives with a cognitive disability, and we worry every day. We worry every day that they go outside. We worry every day, when I go to work, that somehow someone is going to take advantage of them, and that we will not be there to protect them.

I wonder if I could get my hon. colleague to expand a bit on the fear that parents have and the fact that we are not always there. There will come a day when we are not there, so we have to do everything in our power. I said in the last session that Bill C-14 was perhaps the most important piece of legislation in our lifetime and our generation, but as a parent of somebody with a disability this is so important.

I ask my colleague to expand a bit more on the fear that we have for our children.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Official Languages)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our friend from Brantford—Brant for sharing his own experience.

I was one of the original members of the joint committee behind Bill C-14. Allow me to share a little background.

Bill C-14 was introduced in response to the unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada handed down in February 2014, when the Harper government was in power. The court gave the government 12 months to comply with the ruling. The Harper government, knowing that an election was coming in the spring of 2015, essentially did nothing. The Liberals won the 2015 election. We lost 10 precious months before cabinet was appointed as a result of the Conservative Party's inaction.

Politicians are often called upon to make decisions, and it is not always easy. The majority of members on our committee who opposed this bill said they were doing so to protect vulnerable people, which is something everyone wants to do.

Could my esteemed colleague tell us where in Bill C-14 or in Bill C-7, which we are debating today, it says that a minor with a head injury, cerebral palsy or Down's syndrome could request medical assistance in dying? I do not see that anywhere.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this time to speak on this incredibly important issue to all Canadians.

As I was leading into this speech, I reflected back on the debates on Bill C-14. On May 3, 2016, the House was debating the creation of a euthanasia and assisted suicide bill. At the time I spoke in the evening on May 3, I mentioned how this would probably be, in my career as a politician, a member of Parliament, having at that time served eight years and now in my 13th year, perhaps the most important speech that I would ever make.

When I look back on that speech today, I think I was wrong. I think perhaps this is the more important speech because at that time Parliament was faced with a court deadline as well to put into place legislation for euthanasia and assisted suicide. Like many countries around the world that have these bills, going back to the first legislation in the Netherlands in 2002 until today, I have seen the progression of what has happened in these countries as an example of what will happen on the slippery slope of this legislation.

I should say as well, as I did in 2016, I come at this with a very biased approach and that is because I am the father of a 34-year-old intellectually disabled son. My son was brain damaged at age two. He suffered irreversible damage that has caused him to lead a life with his parents as his caregivers his entire life. When the people and organizations that represent persons with disabilities speak, and they have spoken loudly, to the particular changes and amendments that the government is bringing forward in Bill C-7, they have said this is the worst possible scenario.

I interpret that from my lens as a parent in terms of protection for my son. Frankly, it causes me to reflect on what we are currently experiencing: the COVID-19 crisis. Just about every piece of communication that I receive, email, text, telephone call, whatever, usually starts with a sentence where that person says to me or I say to them, “I hope your family is safe”. Generally speaking, the salutation at the end of those communications is, “Stay safe”. I believe all parliamentarians have probably experienced the exact same thing.

One of the concerns of the disability community is this. What will happen to our children in their latter lives when we are no longer with them, when we can no longer care for and protect them? Therefore, the theme of my speech today is “Stay safe, my son”.

Let us look at the evolution of these laws across the world. I will read a few recent headlines that I found through my research coming into this today. “'What kind of society do you want to live in?': Inside the country where Down syndrome is disappearing”. This headline is from the BBC on October 14, “Netherlands backs euthanasia for terminally ill children under-12”.

Let me read a couple of excerpts from this article, which are fairly poignant considering today's discussion. The article begins, “The Dutch government has approved plans to allow euthanasia for terminally ill children aged between one and 12." Of the current law, it goes on to mention, “It is also legal for babies up to a year old [to be euthanized] with parental consent.

I could go on with more headlines, but I choose not to because I think members get the point. The point is this: Where do we stop? With Bill C-14 in its original form, the preamble said it all, which was, and I am sure the committee heard this, that there are many in society who say this bill does not go far enough and does not satisfy those who want wide open death-upon-request euthanasia laws. When we look at this, we must look at it from both sides, because both sides of this issue require our compassion.

I have spent time with three significant people in my life at the end of their lives. One is my mother, who was in extreme pain for a long period of time. I held her hand upon her death. I also watched a very good friend deteriorate from age 39 to age 41 before his death. As well, lately, a very good friend, who is choosing to end her life early, and who I had quite a frank conversation with out of total respect. All of them had been, or are in, the final stages of a terminal illness.

Compassion must go to people who are in situations that are unbearable. Fortunately, there are other alternatives. I happen to live in Brantford, Ontario, and we have one of the finest palliative care units in all of the country. People come to study it and look at it. They come to see it as an alternative. If we were to focus on something going forward that a government could do, but that it would perhaps not see as a priority, it could be to give people the resources to make a choice.

Let me get back to this discussion of the most vulnerable. They are persons with disabilities, and to name a few, they are autistic children, autistic adults and persons with brain damage, like my son. These are not mental illnesses, by the way. Some of these are genetic, such as Down Syndrome. There are some who have met a person with Down Syndrome who just lights up their life because of their complete innocence and their complete love, not only for others, but also for their own lives. There are many others who the disability community speaks for.

Bill C-7 undermines their precarious position. It takes and diminishes the few protections that existed in Bill C-14, and of course, this is what is being chosen, as per the votes up to this point, on this issue by the majority of members of Parliament.

To my son, I say, “Stay safe.” To the constituents of Charlottetown, I say, “Stay safe.” To the constituents with disabilities in Scarborough—Agincourt, I say, “Stay safe.” To all Canadians, I say, “Stay safe.”

The trajectory of where we are heading, and it is in that preamble to the legislation, is what is happening around the world. It is happening in society. People in legislatures are making the decisions for the rest of the country as to what the future will look like.

This is a critical moment. It was a critical moment back in 2016. Again, we are faced with a critical moment. The priority has become a deadline set by a court, instead of the fullness of all voices being heard.

The parliamentary secretary can articulate the numbers. He can articulate the fact that there were so many submissions and individuals we were able to listen to. At this point in time, the people who represent the vast number of persons with disabilities and their families in this country are dead against this legislation. Let us be clear about that. Let us not try to sugar-coat this. This is where we are today.

What kind of society do we want? Where this leads to, frankly, is one of those headlines. As we take away the protections for individuals with disabilities, as this law does, we eventually lead society into the normal course of accepting that assisted suicide and euthanasia are natural things. We move toward being a society that starts to look at individuals as either being healthy in society's mind, and living fulfilling lives, or beings one of those who have been brought into this world, or has had something happen to them in this world, that puts them in this very precarious situation.

Is life easy for persons with disabilities and their caregivers? In most cases, it is not easy. We can attest to that. We have three healthy children, as well as our special needs son with disabilities. Part of the richness of life is the fact that the child who many would see as imperfect is the one who brings the most joy to life. They are the ones we must protect at all costs.

Why do we not spend the time to get this legislation right and make it airtight so their lives are never at risk? I do not believe this legislation does immediately put them at risk. Some would say this legislation is quite to the contrary, but looking to five, 10, or 20 years from now, when most of us here will no longer be in Parliament, it will be a new group of elected representatives looking to make changes down the road.

Is there anything in the international experience to tell us that this is not a continual, gradual and incremental deterioration of the protections for those who are the most vulnerable?

The other point that needs to be made is that persons with disabilities are a minority in our country. Over the 13 years I have been in Parliament, more time has been spent on legislation, members' statements, just name it, than communications from government about protecting minorities. This is a vulnerable, if not the most vulnerable, minority in society. It is definitely in the top grouping of the most vulnerable.

Disability knows no boundaries. We are involved with groups of people, and I represent the Six Nations of the Grand River, the largest first nation in Canada. We are helping aboriginal individuals from Six Nations who have children with disabilities. They feel very strongly about the fact that the few protections that exist need to not only be kept in place, but also enhanced and made airtight for their children.

In those debates in 2016, the member for Calgary Nose Hill said in her opening statement that this is about, “the sanctity of human life” and “defining the morality of our country.” I could not agree more wholeheartedly with those words.

I will finish my remarks by saying, “Stay safe, my son.”

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to the debate on Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to medical assistance in dying.

I want to start by reminding all members that this is important legislation. We as parliamentarians have a court-imposed deadline of December 18 to pass this legislation. This legislation would help prevent the suffering of Canadians. Even if there were no court-imposed deadline, we would have a moral obligation to see it passed.

I am really disappointed, to be frank, to see my colleagues across the aisle delaying the bill, increasing the chances that the government misses the court-imposed deadline and prolongs the suffering of Canadians in denying them the autonomy to choose medical assistance in dying.

I am very disheartened to see members of the Conservative Party of Canada continue their delay tactics to slow this legislation. I saw it at the justice committee and we are seeing it again now. We know that the majority of Canadians believe that MAID is a basic human right. More than 300,000 people participated in consultations earlier this year.

The Quebec Superior Court's deadline is now two weeks away as of today. Conservatives are now trying to undermine the urgency of the situation. They are ignoring the very real consequences that their inaction could have on those who are suffering in this country. I think it is also important to remind members where the content of this legislation came from and the process the government went through in January in developing this legislation.

Bill C-7 was informed by the Truchon decision itself, Canadian and international reports, the experience of existing international regimes, and the government's consultations on MAID held in January and February of this year.

I had the opportunity to participate in some of these round tables that were hosted across the country including in my home of Toronto, where I am speaking from, and in Winnipeg. In these consultations, our team spoke with 125 stakeholders including regulatory bodies, legal experts, doctors, nurse practitioners, representatives of the disability community, and indigenous persons and their representatives. They shared their experiences and insights into MAID and its implementation in Canada over the last four years.

In order to get a broader public perspective, the government also hosted an online public survey. It received over 300,000 responses from people across the country. The summary of the consultations was released in March as a “what we heard” report. Our government did its homework in the creation of this legislation.

I would like to take the time to explain to all hon. colleagues what Bill C-7 proposes to change in our MAID regime so that we all start from the same common understanding of the legislation before us.

There are four main aspects to the bill. The first aspect concerns eligibility criteria and these changes are fairly straightforward. The eligibility criterion requiring a reasonably foreseeable natural death would be repealed. As I have already described, this change would in effect adopt the outcome of the Truchon decision for the whole of Canada.

This eligibility criterion makes Canada's current end-of-life regime available only when a practitioner can determine with confidence that a temporal connection to death exists, with some flexibility. In Truchon, the Quebec Superior Court told us that this criterion violated the charter rights of people whose death was not reasonably foreseeable, people like Mr. Truchon and Ms. Gladu.

To avoid prolonging the suffering of the applicants and other Canadians in similar situations, our government decided to accept the decision and amend the act for all of Canada.

The legislation would continue to require a voluntary request and informed consent from a person with decision-making capacity. These cornerstones of autonomy would ensure that MAID could be safely provided to Canadians who deem it to be the solution to their suffering, while guarding against persons being pressured into seeking MAID. We trust that individuals know best for themselves when they can no longer endure suffering, regardless of whether their natural death is reasonably foreseeable. We are committed to respecting this very personal choice of Canadians.

The second aspect of the bill is the safeguards. The bill would use the criterion of reasonably foreseeable natural death to create a two-track system. Those whose death is reasonably foreseeable would continue to benefit from the current safeguards with two changes. First, the 10-day reflection period would be repealed and a person would only need one independent witness to sign a MAID request instead of two. That independent witness would be someone who is paid to provide health and personal care services to the person requesting MAID. These changes are intended to alleviate barriers to access and to reduce suffering.

We heard from medical practitioners that these did not serve as safeguards, but only unnecessarily prolonged suffering for individuals who had made up their mind. It also created issues of accessing MAID in rural and remote areas.

Those people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable would benefit from an enhanced set of safeguards. In addition to those safeguards required where death is reasonably foreseeable, practitioners would have to assess a person's MAID request over a minimum assessment period of 90 days. If neither of those two MAID assessors has expertise in the condition that is causing the person's suffering, they would have to consult a practitioner who does. That is pursuant to the amendment that was helpfully proposed by the NDP member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke at committee. The person requesting MAID must be informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including mental health and disability support services, and be offered consultations with professionals who provide those services. Both practitioners have to discuss those means of relieving suffering with the person and be of the view that the person has seriously considered those means.

In terms of the broad approach to the bill, the third aspect of Bill C-7 is that of the limited change around advance consent. This one is unrelated to changes in eligibility criteria, but instead seeks to address an unfair situation that arises when a person is approved for MAID but loses decision-making capacity and cannot consent to the MAID procedure immediately before it would be provided, despite the request having been approved and the procedure already planned. Members probably know the reason for this amendment best through the story of Audrey Parker, the Canadian woman whose case we heard so much about a bit more than a year ago who had to schedule her MAID procedure earlier than she would have wanted, out of fear of losing decision-making capacity before her preferred date to receive MAID.

In my view, Bill C-7 takes the right approach by proposing to allow the waiver of final consent only in cases where the person's death is reasonably foreseeable and only when he or she has already been found eligible for medical assistance in dying and is waiting for the procedure to take place, but risks losing the capacity to provide final consent.

According to practitioners and people like Audrey Parker, this is exactly the kind of situation that forces people to make a cruel choice if they risk losing their capacity to give consent before receiving medical assistance in dying. That is the one, very specific scenario this bill proposes to address, since it presents the least amount of uncertainty in terms of patients' autonomous choices and the least ethical and practical complexity.

I know this is an important issue for Canadians, and I am committed to working with all parliamentarians to begin the parliamentary review of the medical assistance in dying regime as soon as possible after Bill C-7 has made its way through the parliamentary process. I have no doubt that the issue of advance requests will be an important part of that review.

The fourth and final category of amendments that the bill proposes targets the monitoring regime. The changes would allow the collection of information in a wider range of circumstances, including information about preliminary assessments that might be undertaken before a request is put in writing. Consultations will take place before these regulations are amended. An amendment at committee based on an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith of the Green Party would require that the Minister of Health consult with the minister responsible for the status of persons with disabilities in carrying out their reporting obligations; again, another helpful amendment that was proposed at the committee stage.

Medical assistance in dying has always been a very difficult issue that generates a variety of opinions on all sides of the issue. It strikes deeply to all Canadians' personal morals and sensibilities. We understand this. As such, it requires different interests to be considered. I firmly believe that Bill C-7 does exactly that. The law will continue to require informed consent and a voluntary request made by a person with decision-making capacity, while also creating a more robust set of safeguards where the person's natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. These safeguards require significant attention to be paid to all of the alternatives that might help alleviate suffering on the part of a person whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. We believe such a regime can work safely by guarding against overt and subtle pressures to seek MAID, while providing autonomy to a greater number of Canadians to make this important choice for themselves.

I would like to return for a moment to the topic of safeguards, specifically when it comes to those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. It is very important to remind members of this House what these safeguards are and why we believe that they are adequate.

This legislation proposes a distinct set of procedural safeguards that are tailored to the risks associated with assistance in dying for persons whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. Ending the lives of those whose suffering is based on their experience of their quality of life is different from offering a peaceful death when the dying process would otherwise be painful or prolonged, or would erode a person's sense of their own dignity. Bill C-7 therefore proposes a more robust set of safeguards where natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. Safeguards for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable would be built around the existing safeguards, but contain enhancements over the previous Bill C-14, which was passed in the 42nd Parliament. Importantly, the medical assessments of a person's eligibility must span at least 90 days.

I mentioned this earlier, but I want to emphasize, as there appeared to be some confusion around this at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and elsewhere. This period of 90 days is not a waiting period or a reflection period. This is not a requirement that the person wait 90 days after they are approved. Rather, it is a stipulation that practitioners must, over at least a period of three full months, fully explore the person's medical condition and the nature and causes of their suffering, and work with them to identify reasonable treatment or other support options they must discuss with the person. The person seeking MAID is not required to undergo any treatments. It would be an intrusion into the individual's autonomy to force them into any sort of treatment, but as we embark on this new expansion of the MAID regime, we believe we can collectively move forward safely, if we can be satisfied that available options have been brought to the person's attention and given serious consideration.

All of these safeguards reflect the irreversible nature of ending someone's life and the very serious nature of medical assistance in dying, which needs to continue to be strictly regulated, especially given the broadening of the regime. As stated by the Canadian Medical Association, which welcomed our government's staged approach, the proposed MAID amendments are “a prudent step forward”. Bill C-7 proposes to further support individual autonomy while also protecting vulnerable persons and ensuring that careful consideration will be given to those challenging issues. For these reasons, among others, I strongly encourage members of this House to support this legislation and to support its passage through this House and Parliament to meet the court deadline of December 18.

I also want to remind members of the upcoming parliamentary review. Through the course of the consultations, and then through the committee process, we did hear of a number of issues that need to be reviewed and addressed, but need more thorough study than could be done in the time required to meet the court-imposed deadline. Parliament will have ample time to review all of these issues, and I think it is important that we do so, but we need to get this legislation passed as well.

Bill C-14, from the previous Parliament, called for Parliament to conduct a review and specifically mentions the state of palliative care. We expect this review will also include important issues such as mature minors, mental illness as the sole underlying condition and advance requests. By no means would I expect this to be a closed list, either. This is a broad issue and we would hope to hear from many Canadians on a wide variety of subjects relating to MAID. Having heard from many witnesses and spoken to many Canadians on Bill C-7, I know there are diverse views on this issue. They are all difficult issues, and I look forward to the parliamentary review and hearing from many more Canadians on the subject and seeing what the review has to say.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am very disappointed and concerned by my colleagues across the way and their lack of respect for the court deadline imposed on us by the Superior Court of Quebec to pass this legislation. I believe we have an obligation as parliamentarians to do everything we can to try to meet the deadline of the court. Canadians want this legislation. Quebeckers want this legislation. I am really unclear on why my colleagues across the way are showing disrespect for the will not only of the court, but of all Canadians. They have been slowing and delaying debate unnecessarily, and I am very concerned by what this says about how much they value the rule of law and the will of Canadians.

I want to thank my colleagues who serve with me on the justice committee for their work on helping us in a smooth and efficient committee process on this legislation. I look forward to this House giving the same consideration to the legislation. Again, I want to emphasize to my colleagues the importance of moving quickly. I look forward to continuing the debate on Bill C-7, but also to its ultimate passage in time for Parliament to meet the court-imposed obligation.

Sitting Resumed

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point of a 10-day reflection period or any reflection period. It is for the person who just signed the document to give deep reflection to the document that he or she has just signed as to whether this is the right thing. It might have been the right thing at the time. It could very well be that within the reflection period they could change their mind. It was a good safeguard that was put in place in Bill C-14, a well-considered opinion of this Parliament, and it should be maintained. There is absolutely no reason to eliminate it, if the purpose is to comply with the Truchon decision.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government's proposed legislation to expand the availability of MAID to people whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable is, in my opinion, deeply flawed and the term MAID, in those circumstances, is a misnomer. If Bill C-7 passes, we are no longer talking about doctors and nurses helping those who are dying and alleviating suffering, but helping people to die who are not even near death.

The reasonable foreseeability of natural death standard, which was so central to the Carter decision, makes sense from a medical perspective, as doctors might be willing to expedite the natural dying process given their traditional roles of assisting medically to relieve suffering. It is quite another question whether medical ethics contemplate doctors now bringing death into the equation, where natural death is not even reasonably foreseeable. It is no longer medical assistance in dying, but medical aid to end a difficult life. This is a big shift for Canadians, but the average Canadian was not even consulted on this big shift.

After the Truchon decision of the Quebec Superior Court, the Attorney General and the Liberal government are treating as settled constitutional doctrine this very key question, whether those who are not dying but suffering grievously and irremediably must be given the right to choose MAID. The government side of the House, throughout the debate on this topic, has stated that it has consulted widely with Canadians, but the extent of the consultations was an online survey that was open for a couple of weeks, containing confusing and ambiguous questions with multiple choice answers that left some respondents, people I have spoken to, having to choose the least of a selection of evils. The public was never asked whether the reasonable foreseeability of natural death standard should be dropped. A judge in one province thought so, but what do Canadians think? We will never know, because the question was not asked. A so-called public consultation that fails to ask the key question is not a real consultation. It is a pretext for the government to advance an ideological agenda.

Truchon was poorly reasoned and unbalanced. It has been left unappealed. By failing to appeal this decision, the Attorney General and the government have conceded that one judge in one province can curtail Parliament's power to promote broader societal interests in protecting people who are elderly, ill, disabled or vulnerable. One judge in a lower court was allowed to overturn Parliament's well-reasoned response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, and Parliament's well-considered opinion expressed in Bill C-14, four years ago. In my opinion, the Attorney General failed to do his job.

What happens if nothing happens? What if this bill does not pass, either in the House or in the Senate, before the Quebec Superior Court's now-extended deadline of December 18? It will become law in Quebec, which means that provision in our Criminal Code will restrict MAID to only those whose death is reasonably foreseeable in Quebec. That is, out of circumstance, better than the new regime introduced by this flawed Bill C-7, so let it fall. Let the deadline come and go. There will be more protection for vulnerable people if nothing happens than if Bill C-7 becomes law.

If all Bill C-7 did was reflect the Truchon requirement, then this bill would be more acceptable. Rather, the government has taken this opportunity to go much farther than was required by the Truchon decision.

Bill C-7 includes some additions that were not required by Truchon, including advance directives and dropping the requirement for contemporary consent. It also drops the reflection period for those whose death is reasonably foreseeable and, for no apparent good reason, it drops the requirement for two witnesses.

Should we leave the safeguards in place? It has been argued by the government side of House that safeguards are just barriers to implementing the decisions that people have already made. However, that is exactly what safeguards are for. They are intended to be barriers to protect the vulnerable. That is the objective, not to create inconvenience, although safeguards may be inconvenient in some cases.

Now I want to talk about advance directives. We have heard arguments in favour of them, and some have cited the Audrey Parker case. Ms. Parker chose to end her life earlier than she had planned because she feared losing cognitive ability to make the decision later on, when she would have really preferred to make her final decision to die. The best argument, in my opinion, against the Audrey principle is that some people have indeed changed their mind when the time came for the lethal injection.

The first annual report on MAID in Canada, published in July 2020, stated that 3.6% of patients who had made a written request for MAID later changed their mind and withdrew their request. While 3.6% seems like a low number, it was based on 7,300 MAID deaths. That means 263 people changed their minds.

I want to go back to the consultation of 300,000 Canadians. If the government had asked as a question about whether Canadians were accepting of a safeguard that would be designed such that only 263 people would have died, with their lives terminated against their wishes, I think the answer would have been quite different. That is the thing about consultations and surveys: They depend very much on the way questions are written. I do not think Canadians were properly consulted.

The same argument can apply to the 10-day reflection period. The whole idea is to let people reflect on the gravity of the document they have just signed and have the opportunity to change their minds. Last year, 263 people did indeed change their minds. We need to protect people like them.

I now want to talk about seniors care. According to that same report, 771 MAID recipients gave isolation and unbearable loneliness as a reason for requesting death. Easier access to MAID is not the right solution to loneliness and isolation. It is palliative care.

I want to briefly give an example in my family. My father-in-law just recently passed away. He had excellent palliative care at Langley Memorial Hospital, and I want to thank the caregivers there. If every Canadian had palliative care like he had, this would not be the debate that it is. This is what we should be talking about. We should be talking about expanding palliative care, rather than expanding MAID to people whose death is not even reasonably foreseeable.

Criminal Code

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure tonight to speak to Bill C-7 at report stage, an act to amend the Criminal Code on medical assistance in dying.

My journey on this over the last while, as a new member of Parliament and listening to my constituents, has been one where I realized this is a very personal issue and brings out a very strong and emotional response from people on all sides of this issue. The stories are personal and impactful and people have very strong opinions on all matters to do with the bill.

The thing that has landed for me as I have considered this is that there are a few things we need to ensure are dealt with in the legislation. One, as we have heard many of my colleagues talk about, is the protection of the most vulnerable in our society. The second is the protection of the conscience rights of physicians and health professionals. To that effect, a number of amendments were introduced by my party at the committee stage, for great reason.

The first one talked about reinstating the 10-day reflection period when death was reasonably foreseeable. I was in the House last week and had the privilege of listening to some debate on this matter. It was a very moving experience for me as I listened to my colleague, the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook, share a very personal story in a question to a member. It was a very moving and impactful story.

He talked about the finality of the decision his daughter made when she chose to take her own life some years ago. He talked about how it was at a very low point in her life that she chose to take her own life. We talk about the removal of the 10-day reflection period, but when I heard that story, it personally moved me and caused me to say that it is so important that we protect people in their most vulnerable moments.

My colleague talked a few minutes ago about the idea of maintaining the requirement for two independent witnesses when death was foreseeable. As an accountant for many years, dealing with many legal and financial matters, there were so many things I did over my career that required the signatures of multiple witnesses. The matters I thought were important over all of those years were nowhere near the importance of determining life and death matters like we are talking about today. The requirement for two independent witnesses being reduced to one is appalling when I consider the matters I dealt with as a professional over the years, which required the signatures of at least two or multiple people.

The other point we have talked about over the last few weeks is ensuring physicians have expertise in a patient's condition. It is imperative that we maintain the ability for people to prove it and have multiple opinions. The extension of the reflection period when death is not reasonably foreseeable is another amendment the Conservatives believe is vital and important to this process.

Protecting vulnerable patients by requiring them to be the ones to first request information on medical assistance in dying is really important. It overwhelms me to think that a vulnerable member of our society could walk into a doctor's office or a health provider's office, while being at a low point and suffering from whatever ailment, and a health care professional or somebody in a position of trust initiating a conversation about medical assistance in dying. It is unconscionable.

The removal of that provision is not acceptable. For that reason, there is no way I would ever support this with those kinds of things still included in the bill.

As I mentioned earlier, there is the protecting of conscience rights for health care professionals. We need to respect the opinions, beliefs and rights of those people to maintain their values and beliefs and maintain the things they believe are important in their approach to their professional journey. It is imperative we protect those folks. The thing I have heard the most from people, along with the protecting vulnerable people, is protecting the conscience rights of health care professionals.

As we think about the process, any legislation that is introduced in Parliament requires a thorough review. Just like I talked about in the context of having the two independent witnesses, when we are talking about matters that are literally life and death, it is important that we ensure we have due process. There was the review that was supposed to be done.

We have a strong belief that this decision should have been appealed to the Supreme Court so we could get certainty in the framework. So many of these things did not get accomplished, as has been mentioned by a number of my colleagues and members today. This is somewhat as a result of the prorogation of Parliament and the fact that we missed a number of weeks of opportunity to debate legislation and deal with these important matters.

I want to reflect upon the witnesses and the testimony that was presented to the justice committee. We heard from numerous people and groups that advocated on behalf of people with disabilities. People are opposed to the bill and the rapid extension of the legislation that has been put before us compared to the former legislation, Bill C-14. It is shameful that we are rushing this. It is a matter of life and death. We are now rushing this to try to get it done before Christmas. We could have done so much more in the weeks past.

As Conservatives, we will continue to fight on behalf of the vulnerable in our society. We will continue to fight on behalf of all Canadians with disabilities. We will continue to ensure that their interests are protected and that they are protected as we move forward in this process.

I want to comment on the impact of this on indigenous people. As the shadow minister for indigenous services, I am always engaged in the lives of those folks. As I speak to my indigenous and first nations friends, they really struggle with this legislation. There is a spiritual element and spiritual being to a lot of indigenous folks. They struggle with the advancement of the legislation and how rapidly it is moving.

I could go on for a while about some of the inequities experienced by indigenous people. I could talk about some of the witnesses at the committee. They talked about the voices of indigenous people not being heard, even though the percentage of the indigenous population in the Northwest Territories, from Nunavut to some of the other communities is so high. Those voices were not heard and have not been heard.

I have a quote that states, “The Indigenous peoples of Canada, including those living with disabilities, do have a voice, however, the opportunity to speak to Bill C-7 has not been adequately conveyed or provided” to those groups.

I want to end with a letter from one of my constituents and I want to frame this carefully. This is from a gentleman and his wife who served for years as chaplains of the Salvation Army in my community. They have dealt with disadvantaged people for many years. They reached out to me early on in this process.

Their letter states:

“As two of your constituents, we are concerned about Bill C-7 and the changes to Canada's law on medical assistance in dying. Canadians living with disabilities and chronic ailments as well as other vulnerable people already have difficulty getting the support they need to live. Removing the end of life requirement from the MAID law puts these Canadians at even greater risk. We oppose changes to remove the safeguards for MAID law for those whose death is foreseeable, like the 10-day reflection period, the ability to consent at the time of death or the requirement for two independent witnesses. We urge you to fight for these safeguards. It is essential that the government protect vulnerable Canadians from abuse and harm. We urge you to call for a reintroduction of an end of life requirement in the MAID law.”

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak this evening, virtually, from my home province of New Brunswick, to what is a very important issue for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Four days is how long the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights took to study Bill C-7. I have listened with great interest to my colleagues on all sides of the House as we debate this important issue, and it has become abundantly clear that the amount of time the government allocated for the study of this legislation was woefully inadequate. That became abundantly clear to me as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where we heard witness after witness, in testimony after testimony, talk about the negative impacts that this legislation will have on Canadians, particularly Canadians with disabilities.

I go into this debate with an open mind. I know that all 338 members of the House of Commons come from different political parties, different backgrounds and different perspectives, but I would hope that most of us are united in our resolve to protect those who are vulnerable and help those who are less fortunate than some of the rest of us. Some of those people appeared before our committee. We had persons with disabilities and other persons who are vulnerable, and under Bill C-7, they would be, for the first time ever, eligible for assisted death in our country.

Bill C-7 is not a moderate change from the existing law. Five years ago, Bill C-14 was passed into law under a majority Liberal government, and it provided for assisted dying. One of the features in that bill, and there was a number of them, were the safeguards that were put in place. One of those safeguards was that a person's death had to be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for assisted dying. In other words, the person had to be dying to be eligible for assisted dying.

There were other safeguards in place too, including a 10-day reflection period. We throw around terms like “life-or-death question” or “life-or-death situation”, but assisted dying truly is life or death, and the 10-day reflection period gave someone an opportunity to change their mind.

As members know, with the Truchon decision in Quebec, the Superior Court decided that a safeguard for the reasonable foreseeability of death was not constitutional. It is my position and the position of the Conservative Party, as well as that of many Canadians, that this decision should have been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, for certainty. One of the key things the Attorney General does on behalf of a government, which is one of the key things a government does, is defend government legislation. This is brand new legislation on a brand new idea in Canada. However, the Liberal government, even at the first instance, did not defend its own legislation and its own safeguards, and did not appeal the decision.

We have heard from so many different groups, such as palliative care doctors and persons with disabilities, and they spoke of the need to appeal the decision. We heard at committee how important it would have been to do so. However, rather than appeal the decision, the government brought in Bill C-7, which not only responded to the Quebec court decision but went further in stripping away a number of safeguards that existed in the previous legislation.

At committee, the Conservative Party moved 10 amendments that were based on the feedback we heard from persons with disabilities, palliative care doctors and other specialists. They would have put back in place some of the safeguards that had been stripped away. However, one by one, amendment after amendment, these very modest proposals were defeated by the Liberal government.

I want to mention a few of those proposals.

One was to maintain the 10-day reflection period to give individuals who may change their mind about assisted dying the opportunity to do so.

Another was the requirement that two independent witnesses, neither of whom are paid, be there throughout the process of assisted dying. We sometimes have two witnesses for wills. Surely, to ensure ultimate safeguards we should have two independent witnesses for MAID.

Another was ensuring the physician who is dealing with the individual has an expertise in whatever ailment the patient is facing. That is not a requirement in this legislation.

We heard powerful testimony from Roger Foley. Members may have heard of his case. He recorded conversations he had with individuals within the hospital who were trying to encourage him to consider MAID, assisted death. I think he is someone who has so much to give, even in his state as a person living with a disability. Roger Foley appeared before the justice committee, and he did that not for himself, but to help other Canadians living with disabilities so they would not be faced with the same thing he was faced with: individuals advising him that he is eligible for assisted dying.

I have heard a number of members tonight talk about the equality of Canadians. We heard from different groups representing persons with disabilities, and they see this as an equality issue. They say there is no equality under this law because they are being singled out. They are asking why they are being singled out.

Dr. Catherine Frazee, a person with disabilities and a professor at the school of disability studies at Ryerson University, said:

Bill C-7 begs the question, why us? Why only us? Why only people whose bodies are altered or painful or in decline? Why not everyone who lives outside the margins of a decent life, everyone who resorts to an overdose, a high bridge, or a shotgun carried out into the woods? Why not everyone who decides that their quality of life is in the ditch?

As I mentioned, we heard from Roger Foley, who said:

What is happening to vulnerable persons in Canada is so wrong. Assisted dying is easier to access than safe and appropriate disability supports to live. Committee members, you cannot let this happen to me and others. You have turned your backs on the disabled and elderly Canadians. You or your family and friends will all be in my shoes one day. You cannot let this sliding regime continue.

As Conservatives, we have listened throughout this process. That's why we said the government should have appealed the decision.

As members know, there was a five-year mandatory review under Bill C-14 of the assisted dying regime in Canada. We know that was to start this summer, but the government did not even get the benefit of the mandatory parliamentary review before it brought in sweeping changes that fundamentally alter the assisted dying regime in Canada and alter it against the wishes of persons with disabilities, palliative care doctors and people who are caring for people at the end of their life.

We need to get this right. I would have loved to see an openness from the government to adopt some of our amendments, such as the one Roger Foley asked for, which would have specifically prohibited doctors from bringing up MAID to patients and required that it went the other way around so that the patient would have to bring it up.

For those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable, who would be eligible for MAID under Bill C-7, we could have extended the reflection period to 120 days. This is based on testimony we heard. It would give time for treatments to take effect and for people to come to terms with their situation.

This is an important bill. It is one that we should have taken more time with. I know the Senate will be looking at it, but I urge all parliamentarians to think of persons living with disabilities who are saying no to the bill.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the evenings there are fewer people around here, so it is always a challenge to keep an audience, but I appreciate that you are in the chair for sure. I know that you always listen to my speeches with rapt attention.

I know that the member for Winnipeg North, without a doubt, is here listening with rapt attention as well. We are sometimes concerned that he never leaves that chair or that he sleeps there. He is usually in that chair before I appear here, and he is usually here after I leave. There are rumours that he may actually live here. I do not mean any disrespect, as I appreciate his interventions. I can recognize his voice from a mile away.

Today we are at report stage for Bill C-7. The report stage is reporting to the House on what was discussed at committee. The committee heard some very compelling testimony from witnesses. Most impactful to me was the testimony from a Mr. Foley.

Mr. Foley gave testimony via Zoom to the committee and he was in a hospital bed. He has a degenerative disease that has made him immobile, and he needs full-time care. It was suggested to him several times that perhaps he should pursue MAID. The bed he is in is a very expensive spot to be taking up, and they are not able to move him out of the hospital into a long-term care bed, so it has been suggested to him that MAID is a viable treatment option for him.

It was shocking to listen to him from his hospital bed tell us that. If colleagues have not had a chance to see his testimony, I recommend they have a look at it. The fact that this is being brought up by medical professionals as if it is another treatment is very concerning to me. Assisted suicide is not a treatment. Assisted suicide is eliminating the patient, not the symptoms and not the pain. It is eliminating the patient.

That was very much the concern that everybody had when assisted suicide was introduced back in 2016-17. I remember that was one of the first pieces of legislation I had to deal with my career here. It was a traumatic bill at that time because I really felt that this was a complete shift away from one of the traditions of western civilization, the Hippocratic oath, which is nearly 2,000 years old. I also feel that it is the government's job to defend life.

At that time I said that this is a slippery slope. Who gets to decide who gets to live and who gets to die? I was assured that that was, indeed, not the case, and that this was where they were going to hold the line. I remember specifically the former justice minister and the former health minister assuring us that they had gotten the balance right. I take them at their word. I do believe they firmly believe they had gotten the balance right.

I do not impugn any of their motives, but both of those individuals are no longer in those positions, and here we are, four short years later, with a gentleman in his hospital bed saying that he is being offered assisted suicide, euthanasia, as if it were just another treatment option. We have treatment option A, treatment option B, and assisted suicide or euthanasia, as if someone should pick one. One is relatively inexpensive and it will free up the bed. The other options will take us a little longer.

Mr. Foley said that he does not want to die. He does not. He still enjoys life even though he is incapacitated to a large extent, so the testimony of Mr. Foley was very telling for me.

The Senate has begun its study and has heard from disability advocates, over 85 witnesses to this point, and none of them has been supportive of the bill. The disability community is very concerned, as the testimony of Mr. Foley really points out. They are very concerned about the pressure that is placed on folks with a disability to pursue MAID, euthanasia or assisted suicide.

One of the most interesting witnesses at committee was the minister for folks with disabilities. At committee, when concerns were raised, she agreed that those were concerns she shared, and that they were also the concerns she had heard from stakeholder groups, which she is closely tied to because this is her portfolio. The voice of the minister responsible for folks with disabilities in Canada had not been heard at the cabinet table or when the bill was drafted.

What is most frustrating about this is that we have seen opportunities for the Liberal government to listen to Canadians on this in several instances. The bill was introduced at the beginning of the Parliament. Then there was the WE scandal, so to get out of that, the government brought in prorogation and the bill was reintroduced after prorogation. The government had heard many of the concerns about the bill prior to prorogation, so it had the opportunity to fix some of the issues it had heard prior to prorogation. It could have reintroduced the bill with some of those fixes, but it never did. It chose not to do that.

Then at committee, I think there were 16 amendments, but the government ignored the amendments that the disability community was seeking. Liberals ignored the amendment to prevent same-day death. Many in the disabilities community said our worst day should not be our last day.

When people are at their worst and say they do not want to do this anymore, that should not be their last day. They should be able to reconsider. This is literally life or death. There is no coming back from this. Many of them brought in amendments to say a 10-day waiting period is acceptable and even a seven-day waiting period would be acceptable.

I heard from a fellow living with a disability who said it takes him longer to get a wheelchair than it would to get assisted suicide. That is one of the major concerns we have. If other treatments are not readily available, then we will see folks being pushed into making a choice that is not really a choice, which is to choose between assisted suicide or going on without treatment for days and days. There were a number of amendments to eliminate the same-day death.

There was also an amendment that was probably the best one in terms of dealing with Mr. Foley's concerns that this is not treatment. It is not a treatment option, and it should be something that is always brought up by the individual. I moved several amendments at committee to Bill C-14 in the previous Parliament around this not being health care. I thought it should definitely be taken out of health care system because I did not want to see euthanasia and assisted suicide being treated as a treatment option.

There was a great amendment to Bill C-7 brought to committee that would have ensured that health care professionals would never be allowed to be the one to instigate the conversation on MAID or assisted suicide. The Liberals also ignored that amendment. The disabilities community is very concerned about the bill. The Liberals have refused to listen to them, and I hope to see the bill get amendments from the Senate.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, there is such concern in my heart for the fact that the government is choosing on so many occasions to go over and above its own responsibilities within the realm of our Parliament, where 338 members made the decision to bring Bill C-14 forward with the understanding that the proper oversight would take place. This is a huge issue for Canada and we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to do the due research to find out how well it has been functioning and if it has been abused. We are clearly hearing stories over and over again now and yet the government has chosen to move ahead and rush this.

Those who wanted to speak to that review have had to try to make their voices heard and known in the midst of the presentation of Bill C-7. We know that many of them were shut down at committee. Testimony time was not extended and very many reports and dockets were not submitted because there was not time. Thank goodness that time is being taken in the Senate. I feel that the government has abused its responsibilities.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak again to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying) at report stage.

I will touch on two key amendments the Conservatives were seeking, namely to maintain the reflection period of 10 clear days between when the request for MAID is signed and then received, and to extend the assessment period from 90 to 120 days for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. Originally, these were amendments we put forward at committee. In fact, these are just two of several amendments we worked really hard to achieve in good faith. They were all rejected by the Liberals.

Therefore, I would first contend that the bill we have received back from the committee demonstrates a lack of concern for the voices of opposition, and not merely those of our Conservative opposition, but rather those of the differently abled and the medical experts whose concerns we compassionately championed. We must thoughtfully consider the alarm of Canadians who are passionately opposed to what Bill C-7 is now proposing.

Bill C-7 would eliminate the requirement of waiting 10 clear days after being approved for the procedure, effectively allowing for a system of death on demand. As we heard at committee, this is troubling for those whose lives have been affected by disability. For those who want to live with dignity, Bill C-7 presents and very clear and present danger. That is what they are saying.

Let us refer to what witnesses told us at committee.

Roger Foley, who lives with a severe neurodegenerative disease, told the committee this:

With the Assisted Dying Regime in Canada, I have experienced a lack of care and assistance for which I need to live.... I have been abused and berated because I have disabilities, and told my care needs are too much work. My life has been devalued. I have been coerced into assisted death by the abuse, neglect, lack of care and threats.

Mr. Foley went on to say, “Assisted Dying is easier to access than safe and appropriate disability supports to live!... You have turned your back on disabled and elderly Canadians!” I found that very difficult to hear.

Dr. Ewan Goligher, a physician-scientist, was clear in his assertion that Bill C-7 singles out those with disabilities when, in many cases, death can be prevented. He said:

Bill C-7 declares that an entire class of people—those with physical disabilities—are potentially appropriate for suicide, that their lives are potentially not worth living. Indeed, were it not for their disability, we would not be willing to end them. I cannot imagine a more degrading and discriminatory message for our society to communicate to our fellow citizens living with disabilities.

As the CBC similarly noted, “While reflecting understandable empathy for often-severe suffering, the bill conforms to an ableist presumption that a life with disability or chronic illness is less worth living.”

Krista Carr, executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, spoke on behalf of families of those with intellectual disabilities who fear their loved ones will be left without a choice. She said, “families now fear that their family members will be encouraged to end their lives. Rather than addressing their suffering, as we do for every other Canadian who tries to end their suffering through suicide, their lives are now judged as not worth saving.”

This claim by Ms. Carr was reinforced by the testimony of Taylor Hyatt, who bravely shared a personal story. Having been admitted to the ER with difficulty breathing, she was advised by the doctor that an infection she had could require oxygen. Ms. Hyatt enthusiastically agreed to the use of oxygen, but found it troubling that her answer came as a surprise to the doctor. I know Taylor and she is full of energy and life. It was at this point that Taylor came to a stark realization. She said:

In that moment, I would have been able to refuse treatment and be permitted to die. Or, in a moment of weakness, bought into the stereotype that my life wasn't worth living and requested and received a lethal injection. Breathing supports would be considered standard treatment for a non-disabled person in my situation, especially somebody in their mid-20s as I was.... If this bill goes through, how many more disabled people at their lowest moments could have a drastically different and decidedly unwanted ending to their story?

We on this side of the House recognize that Canadians' tolerance for assisted dying has evolved over the past four and a half years. In fact, a 2020 Angus Reid Institute poll found that four in five Canadians believe that it should be easier to make their own end-of-life-decisions, compared with 73% four years ago. However, the same poll found that 65% believe the option of assisted suicide and euthanasia has the potential to intensify pressure on those with disabilities to choose death as a means to avoid being a burden to others. They want lawmakers and the courts to give significant weight to this concern.

In my view, C-7 abandons the concerns of witnesses and the majority view of Canadians. Appropriate safeguards, such as the 10-day reflection period and a 120-day assessment period for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable, are absolutely warranted, so why are the Liberals denying this?

My second point as to why the bill should not proceed is that it is the government’s clear intention to go beyond the scope of the Quebec Court of Appeal’s Truchon decision.

One of the key elements of the bill, for me, is the about-face the government has taken. Less than five years ago, Bill C-14 was passed. It was a bill that I, and many in my party, have opposed in principle from its introduction to the present day. However, many Canadians took solace in the fact that Bill C-14 contained a vital element of parliamentary accountability. Clause 10 mandated a five-year review, wherein the provisions of the assisted suicide law, as well as the state of palliative care in Canada, would be fulsomely studied by the House of Commons and Senate before the end of June 2021. This was our responsibility.

This vital element of Bill C-14 has been ignored by the government. As parliamentarians, we have now been tasked to consider a massive expansion of assisted suicide and euthanasia without a clear enough understanding of Bill C-14’s effectiveness, enforceability and areas of acute concern.

It bears repeating something from my speech in October. Rather than appeal Truchon to the Supreme Court of Canada or wait for the all-important five-year review of assisted death in Canada, the Liberals have chosen to run with the Truchon decision and legislate on an expansion of assisted death for the entire country. Not only that, but the bill far exceeds the scope of Truchon.

Indeed, during Oral Questions on November 23, the member for Vancouver Granville, the former minister of justice and attorney general, and author of the original MAID legislation, called into question the government’s effort to eliminate the 10-day reflection period and reconfirmation of consent through Bill C-7. She said:

Nothing in the Truchon decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal, which the government chose not to appeal, requires this, and the Supreme Court of Canada, in Carter, insisted on the requirement of clear consent. Palliative care physicians, disability advocates and other experts insist that this is an important safeguard, and, like other legislated MAID reports on mature minors and mental disorder, advance requests also raise significant challenges.

The government clearly has its own agenda here. The Liberals appear determined to eliminate safeguards for the most vulnerable when they were not instructed to do so. This is coupled with the fact that the House has not had the benefit of a fulsome study of the original MAID legislation. The House should proceed with the adoption of our very reasonable amendments, as Canadians want them.

Finally, I would like to reiterate a point from my last intervention on the bill. The Liberals continue to lag on a national strategy for palliative care, but at the same time they are moving forward on more accessibility to MAID. The Liberals broke their promise to invest $3 billion in long-term care, including palliative care, and have yet to bring Canadians the national strategy on palliative care they promised and agreed to. Just as 80% of Canadians believe it should be easier to make end-of-life decisions, 70% of Canadians continue to live without any access to palliative care. That is why the Liberals’ approach is nonsensical.

The Angus Reid poll found that 62% of Canadians want those in this place to give due attention to the concern that our health care system might begin to ignore long-term care and chronic disease among the elderly as MAID becomes more widely accessible and routine. We are seeing this happen.

Furthermore, seven in 10 Canadians want us, as lawmakers, to consider whether increased access to assisted suicide and euthanasia will mean less investment in traditional palliative care. I dread that, but in my view that situation is already unfolding.

I refer to the Delta Hospice Society, where 10 hospice beds are at risk of being defunded because of its refusal to provide assisted suicide to its patients. The Delta Hospice Society believes that MAID is distinct from, and violates the very purpose of, the palliative care that it is very proud to provide. Indeed, President Angelina Ireland has been clear that the intention is not to overturn MAID. The society is not a threat. It only wants to uphold its approach to the end-of-life care that so many Canadians want and deserve but do not have access to.

A majority of Canadians would side with the position of the Delta Hospice Society. Again referring to the Angus Reid poll, 55% of Canadians reported religious hospitals should be free to refuse to participate in MAID on moral grounds.

Any attempt to cheapen the value of palliative care should be of concern to the House. In the words of Dr. Goligher:

The goal of health care is to help the patient flourish. Palliative care is about helping the patients flourish even as they go through the dying process. I think anything that accelerates or hastens that process and doesn't give the opportunity for reflection and so on is of serious concern.

MAID is antithetical—

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am really honoured to be standing in the House as we debate this very important bill, Bill C-7, in response to the Truchon v. the Attorney General of Canada.

My husband and I were discussing this last night. I can recall the night of the vote on Bill C-14. I had held town halls in my riding, sent post cards, all these different things. It was about a fifty-fifty split among constituents who wanted to see MAID pass. That day I voted for that bill. I thought there were some very important provisions in it which we had to talk about. However, as we move forward with Bill C-7, I have strong concerns.

I decided to return to the speech I made in 2016, and I wanted to share an excerpt of it. We have been going back to people's speeches to see where they were at that time. I am pretty much where I was in 2016 with respect to better safeguards. I will quote from my speech on May 20, 2016:

My role as a parliamentarian is to do the fact-finding, speaking to the constituents I represent, and making sure that I get the right message to make this decision and do what is right for my constituency and all Canadians. From that, I decided to do a lot of town halls ... I sent letters ... one-on-one meetings ... I also received many email ... campaigns.

After that, I received a letter from Dr. Carroll Harder, a physician in my riding. I want to share her from 2016 email. She wrote:

I am e-mailing in response to your letter I received requesting information on my concerns about Bill C-14. Thank you for requesting physician input. I certainly appreciate having the opportunity to weigh-in as a stakeholder in these decisions. This topic is obviously very important to me and I am trying to understand all of the implications of this for me and for my patients.

I appreciate the steps that have been put in place to provide checks and balances that will hopefully prevent abuse of this system by family or health care providers. I am concerned that many groups are calling for less restrictions than those that are currently in place dictating who applies for this and who is ineligible. I would ask that you, as our representative, continue to advocate for stringent restrictions with multiple layers of accountability to prevent abuse of this legislation.

Based on that foundation, I started to look at Bill C-7. I have watched the hours and hours of committee business. Excellent amendments were proposed but were turned down. I thought my vote would be yes, but I have turned it into a no. I have not been swayed by the government and I have not been swayed by anything other than those disability groups that are very concerned about the bill. Then I go back to where I was in 2016. The point is that our job is to protect all Canadians. Our job is to represent Canadians.

What I see in the bill just does not fit. When I look at what the doctor has requested and at all the testimony from the justice committee, I do not think we are doing due justice. Tomorrow we will be celebrating International Day for Persons with Disabilities. We are not doing them justice. We are not listening to them and that is why I have this huge concern.

Unfortunately, because these amendments were left out of the bill, I have changed my vote to no. We had a great opportunity to make this a better bill in committee.

I take all these social issues to heart. I speak to people and they help make these decisions. I think about a gentleman whom I just spoke to on Saturday, Rick Arkell. I recall speaking to Rick years and years ago when I was constituency assistant working for Joe Preston. I recall him calling the office. When I spoke to him on Saturday, he said he wanted MAID.

I know that when I voted on Bill C-14 and made that decision to support, it was the right decision. However, when he and I talked about this, he too understood why I could not move forward on this. This gentleman has multiple complications such as diabetes and heart issues. When combined, they are making his life very difficult. I asked him if he could please send me some more information because I wanted to share his story. This story is not about people who do not want it; it is about people who do want, but ensuring precautions are there.

Instead of his being upset with me for saying I was going to vote against it, he asked how he could help because he knew we wanted better legislation. It comes down to that.

This is a very sad story. As I spoke to him on Saturday, I was not sure what my next steps were. I was not sure if I should go over there and try to counsel him or if I should be a parliamentarian and just ensure that the legislation was right. I am still caught on that.

For a number of years he has been trying to get medical assistance in dying under Bill C-14. This is his email:

“My euthanasia target is 60 days or less. I value and respect your point, however, I most assuredly am not going to enjoy the summer or any time thereafter and God willing, I will be dead in six months or less, whether by MAID, naturally or do it yourself. I have taken 250,000 milligrams of acetaminophen prior to our meeting as I did with Dr. Kay, thinking of the tears, groaning, crying in pain, stumbling and face plants, which were not necessary in fact, not to mention I was attempting to demonstrate that I can live independently. I do the same any day. I go out in public, appointments, shopping, etc. As I mentioned, I am not seeking immediate death since I am working to get my affairs in order as quickly as possible and to find homes for my cats. In order to do that, I need to remain independent. In the interim, I am seeking ways to cope such as I showed you. I still definitely want to seek assurance and peace of mind that MAID approval would provide.”

It is really interesting because we are talking today about witnesses and all those different things that are necessary to ensure people can go through this process.

We talked about palliative care. I am watching this man who is suffering, who does not have an option because palliative care is not available. We can sit here and say that MAID is very different. MAID is different if people cannot get it and do not have palliative care. That is why people say let us go for MAID because there is nothing better.

We just heard it from my friend from Port Moody—Coquitlam. She talked about someone who was willing to go through MAID rather than being in lockdown any longer. Those are huge concerns and we need to listen to that. These are people's stories. We need good legislation and we do not need to put them at more risk. That is what I see in the bill.

When we have had disabilities groups come forward, when the Senate, under a pre-committee study, has 91 different people testifying against this legislation, that should tell us something. It is not one or two people from specific groups who are talking. They are Canadians and Canadian families that are bringing forward their personal stories on what they go through each and every day. We are not making this right. By making MAID a better program so people can get it easier is one thing. However, we should ensure we have a full program that allows choice. I am fearful that this does not offer choice. It offers a choice to take MAID or to live uncomfortably. When I look at Rick, I think this is what is happening to him.

I am also very fortunate because I represent the great organization ARCH. ARCH is located in the community of Lambeth in London. It wrote to senators, and I want to leave members with this:

Dear Senators,

ARCH Disability Law Centre (“ARCH”) makes this submission as part of your pre-study of Bill C-7 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

ARCH is a legal clinic dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of persons with disabilities in Ontario. ARCH also advocates for the rights of persons with disabilities nationally and internationally. ARCH has expertise in Canadian human rights and equality rights law as it relates to persons with disabilities, national and provincial accessibility laws...

I recognize that I do not have a lot of time, so I will sum this up. ARCH is extremely concerned with this. It put forward concerns because it was looking at effective safeguards, which it does not see in the bill. It is clear to me that if people are telling us that this is not going to work for them, and there is a whole lot of them, then we should start listening. That is why I am concerned with the government moving forward with the legislation without including the amendments that have been put forward. It is not doing what is best for Canadians.

I will continue to encourage the government to please think again. Do what is best for all Canadians and let us put the interests of all Canadians first.