Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Greetings to other panel members.
Thank you for inviting me to appear today. I am speaking from the unceded territory of the Kanyen'kehà:ka people. I remind us that truth and reconciliation is not about words; it is about how we conduct ourselves in the face of truth.
We remind the committee that, according to Statistics Canada, 24% of women in Canada live with a disability. DAWN Canada is in its 35th year of service, yet we do not celebrate.
We oppose the removal of the imminent death clause. This is a fatal error, one that you as lawmakers will have to live with. Evidence is absent now as you move this forward, but you will be judged on the evidence and unnecessary deaths you could have prevented if you do not take a pause today. You are all of relative privilege, as am I.
In preparing for today, we have referenced several documents that I leave with the clerk to share and go forward. We will also forward, with her permission, the story of a strong, brave woman named Ruth, a fierce advocate, whose situation is the reason you must pause. In a different Canada, Ruth would receive the support she needs to have a life that has meaning, including dignified housing that keeps her safe and alive. She is intelligent, articulate and would be a good mentor and counsellor to anyone who lives with environmental sensitivities. She knows the ropes, but instead, in her own words:
My doctors are well aware of my thoughts about MAiD, and have been trying to find me a new home, so that I WOULDN’T resort to using this process. But again, there is no SAFE (smoke-/scent-free), affordable housing for people with ES/MCS who are on ODSP. While I don’t really want to go through with MAiD (I had to euthanize my cat on October 4, 2019, just before I was sealed into my enclosure, and it was a TRAUMATIC experience, since she had a bad reaction to the meds), I cannot continue to live in these conditions forever.
You see, Ruth, like so many other people with disabilities, has lost hope. She is not dying, but she meets the new criteria for MAID.
We have also shared our submission to FEWO on the implications for women with disabilities in the context of MAID, which of course will interlock with the discussions today.
I also share the following from the Ethical Principles for Judges handbook, edited by Beverley McLachlin in 2014, chapter five, “Equality”. Under “Principles”, it says:
The Constitution and a variety of statutes enshrine a strong commitment to equality before and under the law and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination. This is not a commitment to identical treatment but rather “...to the equal worth and human dignity of all persons” and “...a desire to rectify and prevent discrimination against particular groups suffering social, political and legal disadvantage in our society.”
One of our most learned judges makes a deliberate decision in this chapter to cite Eldridge v. British Columbia, an intervened case at the Supreme Court that centred on systemic ableism in the medical system involving a deaf woman who sought her right to health care and to motherhood itself, from 1997.
In 2012, and again in 2020, DAWN has intervened in Supreme Court decisions that affirm women with disabilities and their equality rights, while reminding all of us that women with disabilities must be believed.
The most recent decision, Slatter, on November 6, reads:
Over-reliance on generalities can perpetuate harmful myths and stereotypes about individuals with disabilities, which is inimical to the truth-seeking process, and creates additional barriers for those seeking access to justice.
Today, what is your message to Ruth, a desperate and courageous self-advocate during the worst health pandemic in a century? Is this our best answer? “No, Ruth, we cannot help you. It is just too hard for us to do that, but we can offer you MAID.” Really?
You have a moral, legal and sworn responsibility to our Constitution as legislators. It is clear from the highest court in the land that you must, above all else, make laws that respect these tenets, and do no harm. You must do so based on balanced evidence and information about those who will be affected by them.
Thus far, you have failed in your duty with Bill C-7. You have no evidence to support your hurry to pass this bill. You answer to us, all of us. You gave us the Accessible Canada Act after a rigorous, inclusive human rights consultation with people with disabilities. Why not now?
This is Indigenous Disability Awareness Month. As I sit before you, I know we have not had full consultation from a human rights place with indigenous people with disabilities, with women with disabilities, and with the majority of those people who need to be heard in this case.
Thank you.