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.

Sitting Resumed

[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.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House today as one of 338 federal lawmakers in Canada whose duty it is to make good laws that will have a positive impact on the lives of Canadians now and for generations to come.

The weight of my duties as an MP have become more evident as I have been serving my constituents through the pandemic. Canadians have been struggling intensely for nine months as a microscopic organism called the coronavirus has caused us to shut down our lives and institutions on so many levels.

Today, as I speak on Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code on medical assistance in dying, the weight of my parliamentary role is compounded because what I say today may be the most important thing I have spoken about in the 12 months I have been an MP. Today, I am compelled to speak from the depths of my heart, conscience and love for my fellow humans, and nothing less, because the very flow of life and death in our nation is in my hands and the hands of each member of this House through Bill C-7.

Bill C-7 came about after the Superior Court of Quebec struck down the reasonably foreseeable natural death clause of this legislation as unconstitutional. This ruling resulted from a case of two individuals with degenerative diseases, Truchon and Gladu, who had sought to repeal this provision in the law and access MAID. The judge asserted what the plaintiffs were really looking for was for the law to recognize equally the suffering, dignity and, ultimately, autonomy of people who, like them, are affected by serious and irremediable health problems without any hierarchy, whether death is near or not.

Bill C-7 would eliminate the clause that requires a 10-day waiting period between when MAID is requested and when it can be administered when death is reasonably foreseeable. Bill C-14, the original MAID bill that was given royal assent on June 17, 2016, already allowed for this period to be waived under specific circumstances, which are if two medical practitioners are both of the opinion that the person's death or the loss of their capacity to provide informed consent is imminent, or any shorter period is considered more appropriate by the first medical practitioner or nurse practitioner in the circumstances.

Many lawyers, doctors, families and advocates for individuals with disabilities feel Bill C-7 has gone beyond what the ruling in the Truchon-Gladu case called for. They feel Bill C-7 is discriminatory to the disabled and risks the abuse of MAID.

Amy Hasbrouck, a representative from the group Not Dead Yet, said this about the court ruling in a press interview: “Basically this decision is saying that as far as society's concerned, it's better to be dead than disabled”. Hasbrouck feels governments should improve services for people with severe disabilities to help improve their quality of life and allow them to continue living in their own homes.

This bill has also raised the concern of deepened challenges on the conscience rights of doctors. There are limited protections for the conscience rights of medical professionals already, and loosening restrictions will cause greater strife to those already uncomfortable with MAID. Throughout the debate, Bill C-7 has raised a lot of concern that as it expands MAID accessibility, it risks palliative care suffering. As a result, patients will view MAID as a better option. Unless there is more focus on improving and expanding palliative care so that palliative care is more accessible, MAID may appear to be the more practical solution for Canadians.

I now speak on Bill C-7 as a potential trigger to another pandemic within a pandemic. Canadians are currently experiencing multiple pandemics within the pandemic. They are struggling with depression and anxiety about their future because of economic uncertainties and collapse. They are facing social isolation. Although uncertain about the full ramifications of the coronavirus, in order to prioritize and protect the health and safety of Canadians, multiple tiers of government across our nation opted to take drastic measures throughout the pandemic with lockdowns and travel restrictions, which have infringed on some civil rights.

Social isolation is putting seniors in a mental health crisis. Recently, Nancy Russell, a 90-year-old woman living in a seniors home, chose MAID because she did not want to go through another lockdown or isolation this winter. According to some MAID practitioners, there is a trend of more reports of seniors interested in MAID and accelerating their timelines because of COVID.

I would like to ask each member in the House this: Is the passing Bill C-7, with its safeguards removed, during a pandemic, when Canadians are vulnerable to depression and suicide, a responsible and timely action? The government had the option to appeal this, but it chose not to.

I fully appreciate that the debate on Bill C-7 brings issues of compassion, dignified death, suffering and personal rights into a complex but profound discourse. Medically assisted death is complex, and debates on human rights are important, but in this time of severe and drastic measures to protect lives and keep Canadians safe from a virus that has the potential to take many lives, the government has entered into emergency mode. It has put health and safety above many important things.

We have allowed the economy to fall apart to flatten the curve and save lives. Canadians put a precedent on saving lives over some basic rights.

Rights do not exist in a vacuum. They exist to support the overarching vision and mandate, which I hope unifies all of us in the House, which is to protect the lives, sustenance and flourishing of humans; to ensure all people, regardless of who they are, their behaviour, ideology or capacity, to be functional in life; to protect their existence and sustenance needs; and to provide individuals with fair opportunities to dream and make the most of their lives. I understand the principles of debate and rights, but in the context of this pandemic we are facing, my humanity and my heart burn like a mother bear for the lives of Canadians.

In a recent report from the Canadian Mental Health Association, 3,800 Canadians died in 2018-19 after being admitted into hospitals for self-harm. With the stress, hopelessness and trauma created by the pandemic, that number is on the rise, especially for the most vulnerable.

In a survey held by CMHA in May during lockdowns, 38% of the people surveyed said that their mental health had declined due to COVID-19, 6% had suicidal thoughts and 2% had tried to harm themselves in response to COVID-19. Based on this survey, if there are 30 million adult Canadians, then it would mean that 1.8 million adult Canadians have had suicidal thoughts and 600,000 have tried to harm themselves as a result of the challenges caused by the pandemic.

The count for the number of Canadians who have died from COVID-19 is 12,211 from yesterday's numbers. If only 6% of the 3,000 Canadians who participated in the survey had suicidal thoughts, that would still be 180 people. What does that translate to in Canada's entire population?

More survey results show that not everyone is affected equally. While 6% of the general population have had suicidal thoughts since the outbreak of COVID-19, suicidal contemplation has been happening with 18% of people already struggling with their mental health, 15% of people with a disability, 14% of people with low incomes and 16% of people who are indigenous. This is not fair.

This is the question I would like to ask all members: Do we, as members, take mental health seriously? Do we recognize that extraordinary suicide prevention must be part of our COVID response? Do we see the danger of passing a bill such as Bill C-7 in the context of a pandemic where we see rising numbers of mental health challenges and suicidal contemplation?

The mental health side of the pandemic does not end with a vaccine, because healing from trauma and financial restoration takes time. What is the message we want to send to the Canadian public right now as parliamentarians? In the name of saving lives, we have allowed families to be separated, and we have allowed businesses and institutions to be pulverized, but what support are we providing to counter the depression and hopelessness that comes from these drastic measures? We should be more focused on creating more access to counselling and mental health support.

For those who say that mental health is a provincial issue, I would say to them that mental health is a serious issue and one that all tiers of government must come to the table to discuss and implement solutions for. We have a responsibility as lawmakers to look at the big picture and understand the time we are in right now.

We do not see suicides reported, but all of us know someone, whether directly or by one or two degrees of separation, who has attempted or committed suicide. Let us be sober. The bill before us could open doors to a suicide pandemic during this pandemic. Our duty is to pass legislation that protects the life, sustenance and flourishing of our fellow humans and not make them more vulnerable and susceptible to death.

Canadians need hope. Will my colleagues, with a clear conscience, be able to say that they did everything they could to prevent suicide? Will they be able to say with conviction that they had helped someone find hope and not have to resort to death?

I want to be wrong. I hope there is no suicide pandemic, which the unpredictable waves and lockdowns of COVID-19 would exacerbate, but the government has chosen to put the priority of saving lives at a high cost. Were the drastic measures reasonable or too severe? I think most Canadians would say that saving lives was worth it. Will it be worth saving lives by stopping the spread of a culture of suicide through a bill like Bill C-7 during this pandemic?

The very life breath of Canadians are in our hands right now. I cannot support the bill in the name of mental health and saving lives in this pandemic. I do not want blood on my hands for the death of any Canadians who were inspired by the passing of Bill C-7 to cope with mental health challenges and hopelessness during the pandemic, especially when we do not have enough to give them more hope.

Being a parliamentarian comes with responsibility. Ideology comes with responsibility. Legislation comes with responsibility. Legislation is not separate from the current plight Canadians face. I encourage every member to examine this bill, recognizing there is not enough hope to safeguard against the dangers of Bill C-7.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I apologize for the difficulties we were having.

I do not believe that I was speaking about the uncertainty of a physician's diagnosis. I have been speaking about the safeguards that are being removed from this piece of legislation that allow for an individual to take time to reflect on the diagnosis they have received and to have conversations, not only with their family and friends but to look for a second opinion should they wish to do so.

With regard to how we ensure that federal legislation and provincial legislation work well together, we have previous legislation that has been in place since Bill C-14. We now see where a judge has made a ruling that the government should have appealed.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak at report stage of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code, medical assistance in dying, with which the government is seeking to dramatically expand the existing euthanasia regime in Canada.

The government claimed to want to protect vulnerable Canadians. It claimed to be open to our amendments. I see no evidence whatsoever for either of these claims.

Despite knowing full well the concerns that numerous groups had, including those disability rights groups, with the pre-prorogation version of the bill, the minister reintroduced the exact same legislation word for word. In fact, the bill even has the same number. The minister refused to pre-emptively adopt any of the proposed amendments, and has hidden behind the Truchon decision throughout this debate.

What of the Truchon decision? First, it is beyond unacceptable that the Liberal government did not appeal the Truchon decision to the Supreme Court. Truchon struck down vital protections for vulnerable Canadians, protections that this very government put in less than five years ago. Not only would appealing this decision have brought necessary clarity to the legal status of federal euthanasia legislation, it was also the right thing to do.

Instead, the minister used the Truchon decision, which struck down the reasonably foreseeable death requirement in the province of Quebec, to justify a wholesale abandonment of euthanasia safeguards put in place by the previous minister, the member for Vancouver Granville, and the creation of an advanced consent framework, open to any number of abuses.

That member for Vancouver Granville raised these concerns in this place. She said:

Nothing in the Truchon decision...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.

However, the minister refuses to listen. A statutory review of the impacts of Bill C-14, required by law, has not been undertaken. That review is mandatory to ensure that the safeguards in place are effectively protecting the elderly and infirm Canadians from manipulation and abuse. Instead of waiting to make these changes until the mandatory review was completed, the Minister of Justice pushed forward his own ideological stance. He blindly pushed Canadians into the dark instead of the light. Sadly, I am not surprised the minister would push this ideology on vulnerable Canadians. When Bill C-14 was introduced, after all, he opposed his own government's legislation. Now, as the minister, he is refusing to listen.

It has always been my priority and that of my colleagues to ensure that any legislation on euthanasia and assisted suicide includes strong safeguards for the most vulnerable in our society as well as for the conscience rights of health professionals. This is clearly not the minister's priority. Instead, by allowing advanced directives for assisted suicide without any legal assurance that individuals will have the opportunity to change their minds and with Liberal members voting down an amendment that would have required those seeking euthanasia to be given an opportunity to refuse it on the day in question, could mean that people could be legally euthanized in their sleep without any opportunity for them to change their mind. This is horrifying. How can the Liberals possibly justify this?

Inclusion Canada, a disability rights organization, has stated that the legislation is its “worst nightmare” and that it is a “moral affront” to equate euthanasia to an equality right. The minister still refuses to listen.

The most egregious, in my view, is the removal of the 10-day waiting period and the need for two independent witnesses. The Liberals also voted against a seven-day-waiting period amendment proposed at committee. They made a deliberate choice to strike down one of the most important safeguards for vulnerable people facing uncertain medical prognosis and have opened Pandora's box to same-day death.

Each of us can think of someone in our lives, perhaps a friend, a grandparent or even a spouse, who has received a serious medical diagnosis. The emotional impact of hearing that news can be overwhelming for both the patients and their families. It can cause depression, anxiety and a great fear of the unknown, especially now in the face of the ongoing pandemic.

Many of us can also think of loved ones who have received terminal diagnoses, only to beat their illness and live for years afterward. However, with the safeguards of two independent witnesses and a 10-day waiting period gone, such stories will be fewer and further between. Without a mandated length of time to collect themselves, to receive support from their families and to learn about treatment options or get second opinions, some people will make emotional decisions based on fear.

Taylor Hyatt, a young woman with a visible disability, shared her experience while suffering from pneumonia and in need of oxygen to help her to breathe. She said:

After taking a cab to the nearest hospital, I was immediately admitted. A couple hours – and many tests – later, the doctor was no closer to finding out what caused my illness. When she finally came to see me, at about 11pm, she said: “The only thing we know is that this infection affects your breathing. You may need oxygen. Is that something you’d want?” My answer was: “Well, of course!” She seemed surprised maybe, or unconvinced, so she asked again: “Are you sure?” I replied, “Well, of course!

Any non-disabled person would have received oxygen immediately, but instead the doctor asked her twice, leaving Taylor to believe that the doctor assumed that because she was disabled she may not want to live. What if Taylor had felt overwhelmed that day and requested euthanasia in a moment of weakness? At the time, she would have had 10 days to reconsider this choice. If this bill passes, she could have died that day and the world would have lost a great warrior for the rights of disabled Canadians. How can we allow for the legal possibility of such a tragedy?

Every Canadian should feel great shame for these failures. We are and we must be better than this. Every great or good society is judged by how it treats those deemed to be the least among them. How can we claim to be either great or good if we treat the Taylor Hyatts of our nation as if their lives are less valuable than our own. We must protect the innate dignity of every human life, knowing that nothing, not time, not illness, not disability, can ever take that dignity away.

Still, the minister refuses to listen. He is ignoring the statutory review but only to weaken protections, not to strengthen them. Not only has he torn down protections for vulnerable Canadians, he has placed medical professionals into an even more precarious position than the current regime by expanding the eligibility and thereby the number of medical professionals who are impacted. The Liberal members voted down an amendment that would have protected the charter rights of medical professionals, trampling their rights in the rush to a predetermined ideological end goal.

Tens of thousands of doctors believe, truly and wholeheartedly, that taking part in an assisted suicide breaches their calling to do no harm. Those beliefs are protected in our charter, but not in this, nor in any other federal legislation regarding euthanasia. Such a glaring omission makes it clear that this minister's priority is not to protect the rights of Canadian citizens but to push his ideology as far as possible. That is something I cannot and will not support.

I would plead with the other place to take the time needed for a sober second thought, removed as they are from the minister's ideological fixation, because the minister is refusing to listen.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today because a lot of things need to be said about Bill C-7. For those who are not aware, it is an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to medical assistance in dying.

Members know I was in Parliament when Bill C-14, the predecessor of this bill, was debated. I heard the debate and discussions about the safeguards that needed to be put in place to make sure we did not go down the slippery slope that many other countries went down when they began to allow assisted suicide and branched further into euthanizing individuals.

Knowing all the discussion and thought that went into the reaction to the Carter case, I am very troubled and disappointed that when the Quebec lower court ruled the reasonably foreseeable death provision was unconstitutional or would not be accepted in Quebec courts, the government did not put this forward to the Supreme Court. I feel as though the Supreme Court was involved in the Carter decision in the first place, as it laid out the provisions it thought would be reasonable. A reasonably foreseeable death was one of them, so this should have gone back to it for commentary before coming to this place.

With that in mind, I am also disappointed that the government has not moved forward on the palliative care provisions that were also a clear recommendation from the special committee that studied the Carter decision. It said that without good quality palliative care, we do not have a real choice.

As members know, I brought a private member's bill to the House on this, which was unanimously supported here and in the Senate. I worked with the health minister of the day to put together a framework across Canada to get consistent access to palliative care for all Canadians, because 70% of Canadians have no access to it. As per the Carter decision and the special committee, if we do not have good quality palliative care, we really do not have a choice.

I was disappointed to not even see “palliative care” mentioned in the fall economic update. The words were not even there. The fact the government would prioritize expanding medical assistance in dying without the input of the Supreme Court and without putting provisions of palliative care in place seems to be the wrong priority. Let us let people live as well as they can for as long as they can instead of encouraging them to die. I think that is where we as compassionate Canadians want to go.

Another thing the Liberal government fell down on is the choice not to do the five-year review. When Bill C-14 came through, one of its provisions was about looking at the situation after five years so we would understand whether or not the rules that were put in place were being followed, were adequate and met the intended purpose. That was not done. This was a perfect opportunity for the government to do that work, because we heard anecdotally that in many cases across Canada, the existing rules and safeguards have not been followed. We need to get a quantitative analysis on that and understand how these things could happen and how we can prevent them from happening in the future.

It is disturbing, then, that the government has decided, without doing the five-year review, to make changes to what is happening with respect to medical assistance in dying beyond what was asked for by the Quebec courts. Doing something without reviewing what one already has in place is irresponsible, in my view.

Given that, I have some concerns. The government has removed many of the safeguards put in place in the bill to keep those unfortunate things that we worried about when we were discussing C-14 from happening. For example, there is the 10-day cooling-off period. As anyone who has had relatives suffering through irremediable conditions knows, they have good days and bad days, and on the bad days they can feel like they want to die.

My mother just died in October. At the very end, she was in a lot of pain. I talked to her about medical assistance in dying and it was not something she wanted; she wanted palliative care. I am fortunate that in Sarnia—Lambton we have palliative care. One day she told me she was really thinking about it, but the next day it was not something she wanted, so I really think that 10-day cooling-off period was an important safeguard.

I am sympathetic with one of the changes that was put in, although it should have been put in after the five-year review. It says that once people have signed off on all the documents and the independent witnesses and others who understand the condition have dotted all the i's and crossed the t's, a person perhaps will not be able to give consent immediately before the procedure. I saw this in my mother's situation. At the end, she would not have been able to verbally communicate or even write to indicate her choice, should that have been her choice.

However, removing the 10-day safeguard was a mistake. The Conservatives brought an amendment to try to put it back in and explained why it was important, but it was not received.

The other thing I found troubling was the removal of the independent witnesses. We cannot even get a will without having an independent witness. It seems to me that for something as important as determining one's date of death, it should be a provision.

In Ontario, there is another difficulty, which has to do with conscience rights. There are people who do not want to participate in medical assistance in dying for religious reasons or for personal reasons of conscience, and that is their charter right. This means they do not want to participate in the act and do not want to refer. They do not want to have anything to do with it. In Ontario, medical people are being forced to at least refer. That is still a violation of their conscience rights, and it is troubling that in the debates on Bill C-7, when I asked these questions the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said there are plenty of safeguards in there and it is okay. No, it is not okay. They are still violating rights of conscience and that needs to be addressed as well.

A modified advance consent was opened up to allow people to indicate, 90 days in advance, that they want to have this procedure. Advance consent was studied by one of the committees chartered by Parliament. Its recommendations said that a lot of things need to be considered before we go down the advance consent path. The government has not really done its five-year review, and I remember the member for Vancouver Granville commenting on this very point. There is a lot to be thought out there, and if we do not do it correctly, we will once again have a situation where the intent of the bill is not going to be met. There are going to be new violations in the way we have heard anecdotally, and that will not be a very good situation.

I was happy to see in Bill C-7 the clarification to indicate that if the sole underlying medical condition is mental illness, individuals are not eligible for medical assistance in dying, although there is some controversy there. I have heard from groups across Canada that are calling on the government to allow individuals whose underlying suffering condition is mental illness to receive medical assistance in dying. I think it is not a good idea, and I believe this is in line with what was said by the committee that studied this part of medical assistance in dying. It said many of the mental illness conditions, such as depression, could be treated. These are treatable conditions, not irremediable conditions, and some are glad to see this loophole closed.

The bill intends to:

permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has lost the capacity to consent to it as a result of the self-administration of a substance

We talked about this when Bill C-14 was in this place. At that time, we were not sure about the method of application of medical assistance in dying, whether it could be done with a prescription or not, and there was a concern: What if the procedure went wrong and a person cannot give consent? What do we do then? I am glad to see that situation was addressed in the bill.

Overall, those are my concerns with Bill C-7, and I think the government needs to go back to the drawing board on it. As 50% of the Canadian public seem to be concerned about the existing bill, such as people with disabilities and mental illness, let us go back to the drawing board.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be joining the debate on this issue. It is an important one, and I want to make sure I reflect what my constituents have been telling me on Bill C-7. The vast majority of them want me to vote against this legislation because it would remove a great many safeguards. It would also, in my view, violate some of the intentions set out in the debate we undertook on Bill C-14.

I remember this was a deeply, deeply personal issue for many parliamentarians in the last Parliament, and it is a deeply personal issue to many of my constituents now. They have stories of loved ones who have grievous chronic conditions and were found to be ineligible because of the way Bill C-14 was structured, but they found solace in the fact Carter had paved the way at the Supreme Court to allow for this exemption to the assisted suicide provisions in the Criminal Code. While this is a debate that is deeply personal to parliamentarians and constituents, the law is not, and the law has to be as clear as possible.

In preparing for this debate, I went back and looked at Hansard to see what I had said previously on this. I had problems with the term “reasonably foreseeable”. I could foresee that a judge at some point would strike down this provision. That is exactly what I raised as an issue with Bill C-14 at the time, and it continues to be an issue in Bill C-7.

“Grievous and irremediable” is the term used in paragraph 127 of the Carter decision. I am always worried when I start quoting decisions of various judges, as I remember it was H. L. Mencken who said that judges are simply law students who grade their own exams.

However, I went through the Carter and Truchon decisions again in preparation for this after hearing the excellent contributions at second reading debate by my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. He rightly pointed out that this should have been appealed to the Supreme Court, the original judicial body that decides the laws of the land and if they conform with our Constitution.

Paragraph 682 of the Truchon decision reads:

Individuals in the same position as Mr. Truchon must be allowed to exercise full autonomy not only at the end of life, but also at any moment during their life, even if this means death, where the other eligibility conditions for medical assistance in dying are met.

Looking at the Carter decision, it does not conform to Truchon. Again, this should have been appealed to a higher court. Bill C-7 goes far beyond what was in the Truchon decision and what that single Justice Baudouin said. I really think the government did a great disservice to Canadians by not appealing the decision in order to get a final verdict for parliamentarians to be able to legislate on this question. At the end of the day, we are supposed to be the ones who legislate on behalf of our constituents.

I have concerns many of the safeguards we have talked about are being eliminated. There is a doctor in Calgary, Dr. Thomas Bouchard, who said that the way the government is legislating on this question is reckless. As well, the timeline is incredibly rushed. I would much rather hear from more parliamentarians in the chamber reflecting on the views they are hearing from their constituents, so we can get this right the second time around, now that we are relying on the Truchon decision in the matter.

The UN rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities said that MAID violates the right to life of persons with disabilities. I had a disabled daughter who passed away in the last Parliament, and I cannot but think that had she been able to grow up to be an adult that she would have been placed in an awful situation. I likely would have been her guardian in her later years, and I would have been placed in a situation looking after a loved one who would be rendered eligible for MAID. I cannot be there all the time.

I have had many constituents tell me they are concerned about their minor children and whether, once they have grown up and become adults, they will be able to be with them all the time to ensure that, when they go to the hospital with a medical condition, MAID is not pushed onto them. My constituents are concerned that MAID may be pushed on them because palliative care options may not be there. They are concerned the chronic conditions that are found to be grievous, irremediable and cannot be cured with current medical technology would lead to them being pushed into MAID by physicians, whether rightly or wrongly.

My colleague from Foothills and my colleague from Abbotsford raised excellent points, and I do not want to retread on the same matters they spoke about.

Constituents in my riding have constantly told me that they understand the debate on whether medical assistance in dying should exist in Canada. It was settled in the previous Parliament in Bill C-14. The question before us is what types of safeguards need to be in place.

In the Truchon decision rendered by Justice Beaudoin, it says that it should be open to people beyond what the Carter decision of the Supreme Court said. This is the box that Parliament should legislate within. We have to be conscious of that. Just as I have issues with death needing to be reasonably foreseeable, there were ways that we could have fixed those issues, but not with what is in Bill C-7. It goes far beyond what Truchon called for in any of the sections. In reading the decision, I do not see Bill C-7 meeting those goals.

Every single step in the process is a safeguard for that a person. They may change their mind, reflect on the questions, or obtain access to better palliative care or new technologies that render care for them better and simpler, or perhaps relieve them of a chronic condition.

I am thinking of my other three live-in kids, who have a chronic kidney condition called Alport Syndrome. It is incurable right now, and it leads to kidney failure eventually. I do not know if many members have spoken to those who are on dialysis, but it is deeply unpleasant.

I know one person on dialysis who does half marathons. I have walked 100 kilometres in the Kidney March right next to Said, who lives in my riding. He is a two-time kidney transplant recipient. He told me how difficult dialysis is and how one's mental health suffers from it.

He explained the difficulties around it, but he persevered and went through it. I think of my children in the future. If a cure is never found for their Alport Syndrome, and they are on dialysis or waiting for a kidney transplant, what will the options set before them be? What will be the safeguards available for them when the time comes and perhaps they want to make decisions and a choice like that.

I have had constituents who are surprised by their family members having made a request for medical assistance in dying at the hospital. They were completely unaware of. That should be taken into account. That is why the 10-day cool down period allows family members to be in the know.

All of our deaths are reasonably foreseeable. That was my complaint on Bill C-14 in the last Parliament. However, we do not have to die alone, and family is there for those types of difficult places. I was there for my daughter when she passed away. Even though we may consider this debate difficult, after a judicial decision, we have to get it right. Our personal views should be set aside. What our constituents believe to be the right thing to do in this matter matters the most.

I am trying to reflect what I have heard from my constituents who have express deep concerns over the lack of safeguards. Too many of them are being eliminated merely four years after the previous legislation was passed in Parliament. This is probably going to be the most important debate that many of us have in the scope of our parliamentary careers. I know that is what I will think after my time in Parliament is done. This will have been the capstone, the greatest, most important debate.

I want to reflect what my constituents have said. While dying with dignity is a slogan I have often heard, so is living with dignity. We have to ensure we put the resources and the time. We have to ensure the ability to protect our physicians and nurse practitioners, who are providing this service in the different provinces and territories, and that proper safeguards are in place, so that those who are vulnerable, those who are disabled, are not looked upon as the next person for whom MAID should be offered.

Safeguards are important. This legislation does not meet the expectations of my constituents. I will have to vote against it.

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

Madam Speaker, by way of clarification, amendments were accepted at committee. One was by the NDP with respect to accessing expertise in rural and remote communities and one by the Green Party in respect to ensuring consultation happens between the Minister of Health and the Minister of Disability Inclusion.

Over the last couple of days we have heard a lot of debate on safeguards and why some safeguards are being eased while others are being increased. What I would put to the member is that we have the benefit now of four years of data after the advent of Bill C-14 in the last Parliament. What that data has shown us, and what the results have shown us, is that some of the safeguards were not doing the work they were intended to do.

The 10-day reflection period, for example, was prolonging suffering among those who were availing themselves of MAID because some were ensuring they would be able to provide final consent on that 10th day by depriving themselves of their own pain sedation medication.

Does the member agree that, in certain instances, safeguards like that need to be revisited and altered to address the need to be compassionate and alleviate suffering?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of all the pieces of legislation that I have debated in the House over the years, this one, Bill C-7, more than any other, deeply distresses me.

Four years ago when the Supreme Court created the right to assisted suicide in Carter, whether we liked it or not it became the law of the land. The court also set out the parameters of what that right entailed, and those parameters were addressed in Bill C-14 with the appropriate safeguards built in. Among those safeguards the most important was, arguably, that death had to be reasonably foreseeable in order to qualify for medical assistance in dying, or MAID.

Fast forward to 2019. In a puzzling decision from a Quebec court, a single judge ruled in Truchon that parts of the federal law on MAID were unconstitutional because, in her view, they were too restrictive. Among the safeguards deemed too restrictive was the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable. One single judge of a lower court made a decision for all of Canada that was literally about life and death. What is worse, the Liberal government chose not to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court. Canadians have a right to ask the Prime Minister why not. Instead of appealing the case to determine whether the nine justices of the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court judge, this government immediately brought forward new legislation, presumably because Truchon reflected the Prime Minister's own ideology.

The new bill is a dramatic departure from the protections included in the original MAID legislation. It has confirmed the fears of many: that the initial legislation represented the crest of a steep, slippery slope towards a much more expansive and dangerous approach to euthanasia.

One of the primary functions of government is to protect the lives of its citizens. In fact, the right to life is expressly enshrined in our charter. Sadly, the bill before us fails to protect the lives of our most vulnerable. It would remove the critical safeguards contained in the original MAID legislation. Removing these safeguards would have irreversible consequences. What is deeply disturbing is that Liberal MPs steadfastly refused to allow additional hours of debate to ensure that the law would reflect the will of Canadians, and they obstinately refused to accept reasonable amendments to Bill C-7 that were brought forward by our Conservative MPs.

These amendments were supported by a broad cross-section of stakeholders and included things such as leaving in place the 10-day reflection period before choosing death, ensuring the right to withdraw consent and protecting vulnerable patients by requiring the patient to be the one who first requested information on MAID. These were eminently sensible amendments that supported the autonomy of the individual while protecting the vulnerable, so it is fair to ask why the Liberal government did not support these amendments and why there is a rush to ram this legislation through the justice committee.

The Truchon case also highlights the role that judicial creep plays in the evolution of social policy in Canada. Four years ago, many of us expressed great apprehension that the original Bill C-14 would be expanded by future court decisions, and that these decisions would leave more vulnerable populations exposed to the reach of medically assisted suicide. Although our concerns were summarily dismissed at that time, Truchon and Bill C-7 have fully borne out our concerns, which is why more and more disability groups, I believe around 72, have set the alarm bells ringing and are vehemently opposing this legislation. They argue that this legislation amounts to “a deadly form of discrimination”, making it easier for disabled persons to die than to live. Again, piece by piece, the protections for the vulnerable that were promised in the original assisted suicide bill are being stripped away. In the future, things can only get worse unless we say a clear no to Bill C-7.

I have great sympathy for our fellow citizens who suffer from intolerable pain and are pleading for relief. Concern and compassion are hallmarks of life in Canada, and are qualities I hope we never discourage or disparage. However, I would also hope the primary focus of care for these individuals, at least in the first instance, would always be a higher level of palliative care.

What the government has done instead is focus on expanding the opportunities for Canadians to end their lives rather than improve them. This bill would allow Canadians with a mental illness or other disability to end their lives through assisted death even if they were nowhere near death. The government's own annual reporting revealed that, last year, 87 disabled Canadians who died with medical assistance had been denied access to critical disability support services. That is simply unacceptable. Canadians with disabilities deserve better.

To fully understand the slippery slope I referenced earlier, one need only look to the recent report from Dr. Ivan Zinger, Canada's chief correctional investigator, who exposed deep flaws in our current MAID regime as manifested in Canada's prisons. He cites the case of one terminally ill prisoner who was serving a two-year sentence. The inmate sought compassionate early parole to die a natural death in his community. Parole was denied. He then sought and received an assisted death. This is a gross misapplication of assisted suicide, and raises important questions about whether the government is adequately supporting Canadians who are facing difficult end-of-life decisions. Dr. Zinger has called for an absolute moratorium on all assisted suicide in Canada's prisons.

More broadly, I call into question whether the government is exercising the requisite caution and care to avoid unnecessary overreach and ensure that MAID is not abused or misapplied.

Equally disturbing is the concern that MAID would increasingly be used by the poor to escape their dire circumstances. A recent article in Maclean's, entitled “Dying for the Right to Live”, concluded that some disabled Canadians were considering MAID because they “simply cannot afford to keep on living.” The article referenced Susan, which is not her real name, who explained that because she had dietary restrictions food banks were not an option for her, and that a livable income was literally a matter of life and death. She said:

An increase [in income support] is the only thing that could save my life. I have no other reason to want to apply for assisted suicide, other than I simply cannot afford to keep on living.

How many other Susans are out there, for whom expanded availability of MAID represents a quick exit out of their circumstances? Who is next, children or perhaps Canadians struggling with mental illness who ask for assisted suicide because they fear being a burden to their family and friends? These are the vulnerable the Liberal government promised to protect. Members will recall that when the former minister of justice originally tabled MAID, she emphatically declared, “we need to be absolutely confident that we would not be putting vulnerable people at risk”, yet here we are today chipping away at the very protections that were so blithely guaranteed by our Liberal colleagues not so long ago.

I do not believe that Canadians expected that assisted suicide would be extended to those not terminally ill or near death, nor do I believe they would support MAID being used to displace a commitment to deliver a higher level of palliative care in our country. Similarly, I do not believe Canadians are in any way comfortable with the idea that our country would shirk its responsibility to the indigent by providing MAID as an escape from abject poverty.

For something as final as death and something as precious as life, should we not be taking a greater amount of time and care in debating and implementing the end-of-life options for Canadians? Instead of ushering in a new world of options for Canadians to seek death, should we not be doing our very best to incent Canadians to choose life?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I last rose in the House to speak to the matter of physician-assisted death in 2016, I noted that the legislation then before us, Bill C-14, was neither the alpha nor the omega in the continuing conversations on the topic that Canadians have had for decades.

The Supreme Court had forced that legislative moment on reluctant politicians with the Carter decision, although the conversation had been simmering across society from the last century into this one.

However, in 2016, Bill C-14 brought us nowhere near where the Supreme Court had ruled Parliament must go. It was an interim step. It was a very cautious first step that was driven home with the Truchon-Gladu ruling in Quebec, which ordered that a class of people denied eligibility for medical assistance in dying by Bill C-14 were indeed entitled to access medical assistance in accordance with the Carter ruling.

The legislation before us now, Bill C-7, as amended in committee, under-amended I believe, and I will get to that in a moment, goes considerably beyond Truchon-Gladu. That said, the past five years of medically assisted death has brought Canadian society to a much more accepting place than in 2016; that increased acceptance of the practice justifies the additional provisions included in Bill C-7.

To my point that Bill C-7 was under-amended by the justice committee, the Conservatives hold that, for a variety of reasons, not least of which the WE scandal prorogation that wasted six valuable weeks in the summer, Bill C-7 has been indecently rushed through committee with not nearly adequate consultation. In the shadow of time allocation, signalled by the Liberal House leader last Thursday, it seems it will be denied adequate debate now during report stage.

This flawed process makes even more important the separate full and comprehensive parliamentary review of medically assisted death demanded by Bill C-14.

At committee, the Conservatives proposed nine amendments to better protect vulnerable groups, reasonable amendments, all rejected by the Liberals, but amendments which I hope Senate colleagues will consider in the upper house. I say that with some expectation of that actually happening as a result of testimony before the Senate's legal affairs committee last week by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. In fact, the minister endorsed exactly the same point as was proposed by one of the Conservative amendments, which was voted down by Liberal members of the House justice committee. She said, unambiguously, that health practitioners should not be allowed to discuss the issue of assisted dying until a patient asked.

Admittedly, this is a particularly difficult issue and one of context. I understand why anyone, but particularly a person with disabilities might feel improperly, even terrifyingly pressured, depending on how the matter is raised by a doctor. There is quite a difference between a physician informing of a range of choices facing a seriously ill patient and directly recommending assisted death.

The Canadian Nurses Association advised the Senate committee that the law should explicitly allow doctors to raise the issue with patients, as did the Canadian Association of Medical Assistance in Death Assessors and Providers. Dr. Stefanie Green told the committee that it would be unprofessional not to lay all the options on the table. I am sure we will all follow Senate dealings on this question very closely.

The disability inclusion minister testified as well before the Senate committee that she was open to considering an amendment to Bill C-7 that would impose a 12-month sunset clause on the proposed ban on individuals suffering solely from mental illnesses to seek an assisted death. Legal experts have made it abundantly clear that if that clause remains in Bill C-7, it is destined, almost certainly, to return to the Supreme Court where it will almost certainly be found to be unconstitutional. This is another consideration to watch closely.

Over the years since Bill C-14 was passed, and now as Bill C-7 is being rushed to law, a dark cloud has hung over discussion and debate, and that is the government's still unkept promise, a broken promise actually, to better provide choice, a meaningful alternative to physician-assisted death.

In 2015, the Liberals made a campaign commitment to invest $3 billion in long-term care, including palliative care. In fact, the importance of access to palliative care and end-of-life decision-making was one of the few unanimous points of agreement in the special joint committee's report to Parliament in February 2016.

The government promised to expand the availability of accessible, affordable, acceptable palliative care for all those who for reason of conscience, faith or choice decided not to avail themselves of physician-assisted death. The Liberals' inconsistency in the matter of choice in other circumstances aside, this is a promise that must be fulfilled. It is essential that hospice and palliative care capacity in the country be vastly expanded to provide for those who would choose a meaningful alternative to MAID.

As I said in the House four years ago, my personal decision, which will determine my vote on this legislation, is a product of three individuals and their experiences and my own.

In my previous life as a journalist, I followed closely the unsuccessful legal crusade of Sue Rodriguez, as ALS steadily increased its smothering, deadly grip on her. I was seized by her rhetorical question posed to all Canadians, “If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?”

When I first came to Parliament 12 years ago, I became close to another thoughtful, courageous Canadian, a fellow MP, the Hon. Steven Fletcher, Canada's first quadriplegic MP, re-elected three times. Steven did not give up after a life-changing accident. He met immense challenges and he overcame them.

However, in two private members' bills tabled several years ago, which I seconded, and in testimony before the justice committee in January 2016, Steven made a powerfully convincing argument for self-determination to one day make a final decision. Steven argued for a law by which an individual could make one's own decision based on one's own morals and ethics, but under guarantee there would be no pressure on that person from society, family, friends, or the facility in which he or she might be.

I was also powerfully persuaded by the tragically tortuous passing of my brother-in-law, a brilliant academic, by Alzheimer's. I informed the House during debate on Bill C-14 that should such an end one day face me, I would surely compose an advance directive and that one way or the other it would be fulfilled.

Finally, as a cancer survivor, I have had many hours of reflection during treatment and since to personally ponder the issues involved in medically assisted death and Sue Rodriguez's quite powerful rhetorical question: Who owns my life?

I am honoured to participate in this debate on Bill C-7 as I was with Bill C-14. Bill C-7 would correct the major deficiencies of the original legislation, but it is still deficient. Whatever happens in the Senate, I hope the parliamentary review, which should have occurred before consideration and passage of Bill C-7, will now more thoroughly examine this evolving law and properly lead to eventual amendments, chief among them measures to better ensure protection of Canada's most vulnerable.