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.
