Bill C-7 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) repeal the provision that requires a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(b) specify that persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are not eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(c) create two sets of safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person, the application of which depends on whether the person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable;
(d) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has been found eligible to receive it, whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and who has lost the capacity to consent before medical assistance in dying is provided, on the basis of a prior agreement they entered into with the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner; and
(e) 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 that was provided to them under the provisions governing medical assistance in dying in order to cause their own death.

Sitting Resumed

[Derek Sloan, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue and I am pleased and honoured to speak to it tonight. I would like to share, from the perspective of at least certain communities in Canada, some of the issues that certainly many members in our caucus and others have with the bill.

Many people feel that the government has essentially ignored the concerns of Canada's disabled community, their doctors and their advocates who have made it clear that the bill would cause harm to their community. They have also ignored indigenous communities in their misgivings about the bill. Personally, I have been reached out to by physicians, representatives from advocacy groups for people with disabilities, physicians who serve the disabled, palliative care physicians and, most powerfully, disabled Canadians who depend on caregivers to live their lives.

I can assure the House that Canada's disability community is firmly against Bill C-7 and I think that is clear in the testimony we have seen. They are afraid of the message it sends that the lives of disabled Canadians are not worth living. Physicians have expressed serious concerns with euthanasia becoming a standard of care as the bill would mandate. They are clear in expressing that a 90-day waiting period is not nearly enough. It is very common for patients who experience a catastrophic medical episode like a stroke or who receive a diagnosis of a debilitating disease to express death wishes. Part of a doctor's job is to remind their patients that their life has value and to encourage them to persevere. It is also very common for initial suicidal ideations to go away in a matter of months after a patient becomes more used to their situation.

A 90-day reflection period is simply not enough time. It makes me tremble when I think of how many lives will be needlessly cut short if the bill passes. The government should have appealed the Truchon decision to defend its own law in the Supreme Court and is, in my view recklessly, rushing to pass this new law before the initial review of the MAID legislation has taken place. It is important to recognize the fact that the mandated five-year review of the initial MAID legislation has not taken place yet. The government is jumping the gun here in proposing the bill, which loosens the necessary safeguards in place to ensure euthanasia is safe, rare, never coerced and never rushed.

The Quebec Superior Court's Truchon decision declared that euthanasia ought to be made available to those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable. The government has decided that the law needs to be changed to align with the decision of a provincial court, ignoring calls from this side of the House to appeal the decision and defend its own law. As a brief caveat on that point, I feel it pertinent to mention that when the first iteration of this law came, the one that was struck down by the Truchon court, some of the arguments that were made on this side of the House dealt with the slippery slope argument and that was often stated to be an incorrect argument. It was stated that no, the bill is legal, rare and safe. Yet not even reaching the review process that was in place in that law, we are seeing more expansion.

Whenever we think of this law, I would like us to think about potential expansion that may happen in the future, that of children, that of mental illness that we see elsewhere. Bill C-7 does not simply expand access to euthanasia to those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable. It goes beyond Truchon in loosening the safeguards that were already in place, safeguards that frankly have not been strictly adhered to.

Tabling this legislation before the scheduled review of the euthanasia regime in Canada and without appealing the Truchon decision is irresponsible. The government is ignoring the experts. A recent statement was penned and signed by over 1,000 physicians in Canada in response to Bill C-7. That is a lot of physicians. When we are presented with a document with 1,000 signatures from experts in a relevant field, the House should pay close attention to what that document says. Let me read a few important quotes from the statement:

The reckless removal of safeguards previously deemed essential will place desperately vulnerable patients directly in harm's way and may cost them their very lives....This is not the medicine that we have devoted our lives to practicing. Our intent is to heal and to alleviate suffering, not to deliberately end life. We advocate for the lives of our patients, not their deaths....Unfortunately, our patients are the ones who suffer the most from the consequences of this ill-devised scheme. The shock of a sudden illness, or an accident resulting in disability, can lead patients into feelings of anger, depression, and guilt for requiring care - emotions that, with proper support and attention, can resolve over time.

It goes on to say that, sadly, the bill would recklessly prevent countless Canadians from accessing that support or attention, and they will opt instead to end their lives in a time of unimaginable distress. This is a tragedy that we in the House can prevent.

The Liberal members on the justice committee voted against our amendments that would require patients to receive meaningful access to care before MAID would be carried out. Do we really want to offer death to disabled Canadians before we offer them care?

We know that the option for assisted death cannot be truly voluntary and free from coercion without the option for quality, long-term palliative care that truly meets the needs of a patient. The government seems more focused on putting people out of their misery than on investing in what Canadians in difficult situations need for alleviating that misery.

I would like to share some statistics and comments put out by the Canadian Association for Long Term Care. Its website says, “The 2017 Federal Budget included a historic $6 billion over 10 years for home and community care. Long-term care was not included in this investment.” The site notes that the national housing strategy does not include long-term care, and the home support worker pilot program for foreign caregivers does not include employment in long-term care. It also says the 2019 federal budget did not include investments in long-term care. The federal government flowed $343.2 billion in COVID-19-related spending in the first quarter of this year, but not one dollar was committed to supporting long-term care.

I will move on to the moving testimony of Roger Foley, who testified to the justice committee from his hospital bed. He told us that he was essentially given the choice between inadequate care and having his life ended. He was directly approached four times by caregivers who pressured him to receive MAID. This is illegal, but it is happening anyway, and Roger is not the only one who has had this happen. We need to ensure that before people are presented with the option for euthanasia, they have actually been provided with options for the services they need for living with dignity.

Without conscience rights protections, many physicians have indicated they will be forced to leave their profession if the bill passes, including Dr. Ramona Coelho, who brilliantly made this point to the justice committee along with the rest of the testimony condemning the bill. The Liberal chair of the justice committee ruled Conservative amendments for conscience protections inadmissible because the amendments went beyond the scope of the bill. When the Conservative members challenged the chair, the Liberal members voted down our challenge.

Expanding access to euthanasia to disabled Canadians who are not dying will cause many unintended consequences.

First, it is important to listen to the palliative care physicians who are telling us that the term “MAID” no longer applies and that the term “medically administered death” is more appropriate. Disabled Canadians are not dying, so we require a stronger term than “assistance in dying”.

Second, there are serious concerns that making medically administered death a standard of care will dishearten many physicians, causing them to leave the profession altogether. I have had physicians reach out to me and tell me this.

Third, the bill may cause a breakdown of the patient-doctor relationship. It is hard to trust doctors when they repeatedly recommend death because they do not have the resources to provide the care people need.

Let us work on this. Let us ensure that we are actually taking care of the most vulnerable Canadians. Let us give them hope; let us give them help. Let us make sure they know their lives have value.

Kristine Cowley suffered a spinal cord injury 33 years ago. She now has a doctorate and is a professor at a university. She was a wheelchair track Paralympian. She is married with three children and has travelled extensively. This was all done after her accident.

Kris shared that it took her five years after her spinal cord injury to feel great again. She said, “To all outward appearances, I'm a successful person living and contributing to our community, but I'd be lying if I told you that I was good to go within three months of my injury when I was discharged from hospital. In fact, it was a few years before I was able to open my eyes in the morning and feel good.”

How many stories like Kristine's will never be told if Bill C-7 passes? That is what we need to ask ourselves.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, it is ironic that the hon. member stands here and talks about a doctor's job and says we should listen to the experts, as this hon. member speaks against doctors. He has spoken against Dr. Theresa Tam and has questioned her loyalty to this country as she is trying to protect millions of Canadians. We should listen to doctors, but he gets to pick and choose based on whether they ideologically support him.

How can he stand in this place, after questioning the validity of vaccines and our public health authorities, and even suggest that he understands a doctor's role? Why does the hon. member not trust doctors in this country, and why will he not let them do their jobs?

[Derek Sloan, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the concerns that I raised directly from the mouths of doctors are sound. The critiques that many of us have had about the advice we have received through the Liberal government and other officials on COVID-19 has been warranted with respect to telling us all different types of things, telling us that the virus was not transmissible human to human or telling us that travel bans do not work. These are all things that are worthwhile to discuss.

What is more important are the comments from these doctors that they will be unable to do the work they have been called to do when it comes to protecting life, as opposed to ending life.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, one thing that was talked about earlier tonight was how long it takes to get psychiatric help in Canada, especially for people in rural and remote communities. The wait time is four to eight times longer than the 90-day reflection period the bill contains.

Is that a concern for my colleague? People do not even have access to the help they deserve and that they need. MAID could be something that people would turn to, rather than trying to get help because it takes so long to get the help they need.

[Derek Sloan, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned, in a situation where someone becomes ill or disabled, there can be a period of time of adjustment. We owe it to Canadians to give them the right supports and the right services so that they can make the decision that is best for them. We know from testimony that many people who choose MAID do so because of perhaps not having the resources to deal with their issues. There are many auxiliary issues that could be dealt with in a way other than ending their lives prematurely.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, having studied the bill, I think there are enough safeguards in the bill to protect people, but I do hear the concerns of people in the diversability and disability community. There is a lot of fearmongering going on around this bill. People have a lack of trust and for good reason. People with disabilities have been left behind. They deal with institutional poverty. They do not get the care they need. They do not get the services they need. We have seen governments, Conservative and Liberal, cutting these kinds of services. We have seen how the provincial governments do not take their responsibility seriously in looking after people.

Would the hon. member agree something like a guaranteed livable income or a universal pharmacare program would help to take care of people and make sure they have their medicines and that there is an income floor under which they cannot fall, to ensure that people have a good quality of life with the medicine, services and supports they need?

[Derek Sloan, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of things that can be done. To me, one of the first things that can be done is funding an adequate long-term care program for any Canadian that needs or desires it. That would go a long way to reducing the requests for MAID and for addressing issues that many people are concerned about when they choose MAID in the first place.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, once again, I am so thankful to have another opportunity to speak to the bill.

I really feel there are totally inadequate safeguards built into this piece of legislation. We heard powerful testimony at the committee, and we heard from key members of our society who have very legitimate and grave concerns regarding the implementation of Bill C-7.

It is a cause for a pause for all of us as parliamentarians right now. When some of those from our most vulnerable sectors are speaking up and raising very legitimate concerns about the bill, I believe we, as parliamentarians, have an obligation to pause and reflect carefully about the ramifications of a bill with consequences of such finality for people.

The reason I say this is that we heard powerful testimony from people like Roger Foley, who spoke so powerfully from his hospital bed, saying that he was doing it because he was fighting for others who are in the position that he is in. He wants the amendments that we are proposing to be put into this bill to make sure there are adequate protections for persons with disabilities. Never should anyone, any Canadian, be made to feel pressured or encouraged to make this decision of such finality.

I believe, right now, as parliamentarians, we have heard enough witnesses powerfully speak, enough testimony at committee, to say that it is time to put a pause on this and reflect carefully before we go ahead and rush into the implementation of the bill.

I go back to the fact that I simply do not understand why the government did not take the step to appeal this decision from a lower court to the Supreme Court, and to make sure that every measure and every step of precaution is put in place when it comes to such an important piece of legislation. Here it is and we are feeling this pressure to put the bill through so quickly, without adequately addressing the very legitimate concerns that are coming from persons with disabilities.

I think of Ms. Krista Carr's powerful testimony before committee. She is the executive vice-president for Inclusion Canada. She said that some of the worst fears of the disabled are being realized in Bill C-7. She raised these concerns with such passion and conviction. She was speaking on behalf of literally thousands of Canadians and persons living with disabilities and their families.

It would behoove this Parliament, based on those kinds of testimonies, to pause and reflect, and to ask if we are doing everything we can to make sure that we are putting adequate safeguards in place so that people will have the time to reconsider and to reflect.

One thing I know, from my background and the experience I come from, having worked in the ministry for many years, having walked with people through some of the darkest corridors that life can offer, whether they are dealing with mental health-related challenges or substance abuse or addiction-related challenges or whether they are dealing with disabilities or they have just gotten a life-altering diagnosis, is that those initial hours and days can be so overwhelming for people.

In fact, people can feel like there is no pathway forward for them. They may wonder if life is worth continuing. Anytime people get devastating news or are faced with a reality that is extremely uncomfortable or devastating, when they initially hear it, one of the most important things that is needed for anyone walking through that period in their life is for the adequate supports to be in place to help them navigate it, so that they know they are not alone and that others have been there before and that there will be adequate supports, if needed, for them to help them through that valley.

What happens, and what I have discovered and witnessed at a personal level that has greatly impacted my life, is that, when people who have faced devastating diagnoses or have gone through an extremely difficult season in their lives and have chosen to live on through adversity, pain and a devastating diagnosis, many times the people around them were inspired and greatly helped. They helped others who were devastated and feeling like they could not get through the challenge they were facing, but because they made that difficult decision in those dark times, because they had the time to pause, reflect and hear from those who love them and have their best interest at heart, they made the decision to live on.

As a result of that, others were positively impacted and inspired, oftentimes, throughout their life. People who have inspired many other Canadians and those throughout the world were oftentimes those who had to face the most difficult of circumstances. I feel that there are so many other stories out there yet to be realized and yet to be seen that will inspire other people to continue on, even when it looks like they have every reason to give up.

Obviously, there are things concerning the issues of life and death that none of us have easy answers for. We, as parliamentarians, are obviously not fully equipped to be able to see the whole scope and lens. However, that only further points to the necessity to slow things down and carefully consider the ramifications of this type of bill.

There are legitimate concerns being raised by persons with disabilities and those who work with them. They are also being raised by others, such as physicians, doctors and nurses, who are working to save lives every day and feel like this could infringe upon their conscience rights or their beliefs. I feel we, as parliamentarians, have an obligation to make sure those concerns are heard and reflected in whatever bill we pass. Why we would want to rush through something of this great consequence simply baffles me, so I am hoping that Parliament will take the time and reflect, especially during the season we are entering.

Our country has been through a very challenging year. We have gone through a lot of things. Now we are heading into the holiday season, a time of reflection and a time, hopefully, where possible, to be with family. I hope we will take the time to have those conversations with those whom we love, hear the concerns that they have and recognize that there are those around us who are in a very difficult place. Perhaps we can reach out to them, share a bit of hope and stay in touch with them to help them navigate a difficult spot. Maybe they are going through a rough time, and they have got a lot of things that they are having to process, and really what they need more than anything is adequate support.

Let us look and reflect, as parliamentarians, on this aspect. Are we offering Canadians enough supports in the areas of palliative care and hospice and are we providing adequate support for those persons who are living with disabilities so that we are giving people every opportunity to live their lives to the fullest?

With that, I thank members for this opportunity, and I challenge the House to carefully reflect and hit the pause button here before we rush through with any type of legislation. We have heard enough powerful testimony to tell us it is worth pausing for.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, it is bizarre to hear speaker after speaker from the Conservative Party talk about medical assistance in dying as though it is some fleeting concept, as though it is an impulsive decision that Canadians make in a moment. It is a though they are saying, “If only there were the safeguards in place, and if only there were a medical professional there, or any other support.”

Why is the Conservative Party portraying this as though it is not the most significant decision in people's lives, which they have taken with questions to their medical professionals and their faith leaders? Why are they portraying it as though it is something that they just think of overnight? Why are they portraying it that way in an attempt to torpedo this legislation?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would simply respond to the hon. member by asking this question: Why would we rush a decision of great consequence, which will have huge ramifications, when we are hearing powerful testimonies like that of Roger Foley, who felt pressured in this situation and that he was being encouraged to take that step?

It is time that we hit pause and reflect, because these are very serious matters. These people deserve to have all of their perspectives heard. I would think the hon. member would certainly consider the testimony heard at committee from someone like Ms. Carr, who represents many Canadians living with disabilities. She expressed grave concerns. I am sure he would agree that these concerns need to be heard.

If great Canadian citizens, who are right there in some of the most affected communities, are saying there is an alarm bell and they have grave concerns with this bill, should we not pause and reflect based on that kind of testimony?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his service both in this place and before.

By way of response to the point made by the parliamentary secretary, it is important to underline, first of all, that it is the people living with disabilities who have encountered the health care system, as well as medical professionals, who testified at committee about the importance of the safeguards that are in place right now. They did so recognizing that in the vast majority of cases, the system tries to do its best to treat people with respect, affirm their dignity and ensure the decisions they are making are considered in an appropriate time frame.

That is what we would like to believe happens in the majority of cases, but we know directly from the testimony that it does not happen in every case. That is why we have safeguards. Safeguards are there to respond to the general case. They are there to respond to those cases of potential abuse, those cases that are outside of what we would expect to be normal good practice, because as the legislation is written, there is the possibility of same-day death. There is the possibility of people being rushed, and that is what witnesses said happens. That is why they said we need the safeguards.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the hon. member that now is the time to make sure that safeguards are put in place. With a matter as serious as this and when decisions of such finality are at stake, why would we not, as parliamentarians, pause and reflect? Based on the testimonies we heard and the potential ramifications of this legislation being passed, this bill can have huge, perhaps even unintended consequences, that could dramatically affect the lives of our most vulnerable.

I will reiterate that the character of a nation is revealed in how it treats its most vulnerable. This bill inadequately addresses the needs of our most vulnerable.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has happened a few times, and I know it is late, but the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock has taken a few phone calls in the chamber. Perhaps the Speaker could advise him of the rules on such things in this place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Absolutely. It is not only phone calls, but having phones on with sound. I would ask members to refrain from using their phones in the chamber.

Resuming debate, we have the hon. member for Saskatoon West.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill C-7 today. I have previously spoken to this legislation several times.

I would be remiss if I did not remind the House that the reason we are here at this late hour is that the bill was originally introduced and it died with prorogation. Why was there a prorogation? Because the government had this scandal with the WE organization. As much as the Liberals maybe wanted to proceed with Bill C-7, they were more interested in trying to quell all the furor around the WE scandal. I just want to remind members in the House that this is why we are here at this late hour, speaking about this.

The legislation would amend the original MAID legislation from 2016. MAID is a very touchy, personal and non-partisan issue. I have asked my constituents many questions about this proposed law and most of them are opposed. I am opposed and I will not be supporting the legislation.

Why are we here right now? There are two examples of Liberal inaction that brought us to this place.

The first is the Quebec judge who struck down the “reasonably foreseeable” portion of the law in the Truchon case. Federal governments typically would appeal a lower court ruling, particularly one that has such profound and life-altering consequences. It is quite interesting that the Liberal government chose not to appeal this case, given that it had such significant consequences right across the country. In my opinion, the government should have appealed this case, but it chose not to.

The second reason we are here is that originally the legislation had a scheduled parliamentary review that was supposed to happen this past summer. COVID-19 threw a bit of a monkey wrench into that plan, but at the end of the day, this review has not happened. Again, inaction on the part of the government has gotten us to this place. Why was there inaction on this review? The current justice minister voted against this legislation in 2016, not because he did not agree with the legislation but because it did not go far enough, in his opinion.

The Liberals talk about consulting and listening to Canadians, but the truth is that the Liberal government has its own agenda and pushes that. The truth is that the Liberals did not want the parliamentary review the way it was defined. They wanted something less, something that they could better control. The truth is that they had their own agenda and they wanted to implement their own plans.

The Liberals will talk about consultations that they had with groups and 300,000 responses to their online consultation, but those kinds of discussions are very different from a parliamentary review. Those kinds of consultations are very easy to manipulate, easy to ignore, easy to lead people in a certain direction. It provides cover in the end for implementing the agenda they want to implement.

They had an online survey. It asked leading questions. There was very little ability for people to think outside the box, to provide their own suggestions. It was there for barely two weeks. It was a very short period of time.

It is interesting that we have had the Senate pre-study and the committee study in the House of Commons and almost nobody liked the legislation, even Liberals who spoke to it. Witness after witness had issues that they raised with the legislation and there was nearly unanimous agreement that it needed to be changed dramatically.

Therefore, here we are.

What do I think about the legislation? I sent several mailers to my constituents. We received well over 400 contacts, including phone calls, emails and letters. Roughly two-thirds of them were opposed to the legislation.

There was a lot of feedback on the rights of health care workers. Do they have the right to say no to euthanizing someone? The whole question of conscience protection came up again and again. Are medical professionals free to not participate in this? Are they free of penalty or harassment? The conscientious objection of institutions is another thing that came up, because institutions are more than bricks and mortar; they are actual people with values invested.

I have spoken of this before, but I want to raise it again.

In Saskatoon, we have a wonderful hospital called St. Paul's Hospital. It is a Catholic hospital governed by the Catholic Bishops board. The Province of Saskatchewan allows hospitals to choose which services to perform. This particular hospital operates on the basis of the Catholic faith, so it does not perform MAID. However, it does respect patients' right to choose and it will transfer patients to another hospital if MAID is requested by that patient.

Instead of MAID, St. Paul's is well known for its amazing palliative care. I have a personal example from my own family, because my mother-in-law was a patient in the palliative care wing of St. Paul's Hospital here in Saskatoon. In her case, MAID was not requested nor was it desired. She received one of 12 palliative care beds in the city. She received amazing care as she came to the end of her life and passed away peacefully in that palliative care bed.

I just want to highlight the 12 palliative care beds. Fortunately, the hospital has recently added 13 more, but even at that, 25 palliative care beds for all of northern Saskatchewan is far below what is needed. It is very inadequate. It is a bit like winning the lottery, in a sense, to get a palliative care bed in northern Saskatchewan right now, and my mother-in-law was very fortunate she was able to have that at the end of her life. In fact, 70% of Canadians do not have access to good palliative care.

The hospital actually built these 13 new beds all on its own, by raising the money to build the units. However, because there is lack of conscience protection, the hospital is being sued by activists to provide MAID. A hospital well known for amazing palliative care is being forced to defend itself in court because it will not provide MAID. We must respect the multicultural nature of Canadian society. We have to respect medical professionals and institutions and allow them to have full conscience protections, free from harassment and consequences.

As I said, MAID is a very touchy, personal and non-partisan issue. We can always find examples of people for whom MAID legislation is a difficult and unwelcome option, but I have heard many stories of cases where families were caught by surprise and forced to deal with the aftermath, or cases where a person was at a particularly low point in their health. Under this legislation, they would be able to request and receive MAID with no waiting period. I have also heard of cases where physicians or hospitals applied pressure on individuals to consider MAID.

There are a couple of stories I would like to share. A friend of mine had an elderly father who was in hospital with non-life-threatening issues. Eventually a doctor came by who suggested to his father that he think about MAID, and his father actually chose MAID without letting his family know. My friend had to explain to his elderly mom, who had the beginnings of dementia, what had happened to her husband, and to his dad. It was very difficult to explain, and very complicated. There was no consultation with the family and it was thrown on them as a surprise. In fact, they did not even have a funeral for over a year because they simply did not know how to explain it to people and cope with it.

What that example shows me is that, in the aftermath of people choosing MAID, there is literally a swath of people who are hurt emotionally by these things. The requirements for counselling and psychologists and other things are amazing.

Another story I have is about a constituent of mine, who is a disabled older person. I spoke to her because she was trying to bring in a care worker, and that led to a discussion about Bill C-7. She was very concerned about the bill's impact on disabled persons. She was worried this was going to become one of the tools in the tool belts of physicians. She went on to tell me the story of her neighbour across the street, who was also disabled, and quite depressed due to COVID-19. In the end, this neighbour of hers took her life with MAID because she felt there was no hope. Her doctor supported the patient's decision, and my constituent was very disturbed by this.

As I close, I am reminded of something a constituent of mine told me back in February, which was that we need to slow this down and not speed it up. After listening to the many witnesses who have spoken at committee, he is correct. We need to carefully consider legislation with such significant consequences.

I agree with my constituent. Yes, we need to deal with the Quebec court decision. We should appeal it, but if not, there is still only one change required. We should have the proper legislated review. We should put in place a pan-Canadian strategy for palliative care. Let us put in full conscience protection for physicians and institutions. Let us leave the 10-day waiting period. These are amendments we have proposed. Let us continue to require two independent witnesses. Let us slow this down.