Madam Speaker, during this debate time, we have an opportunity as legislators to ensure that we carefully and thoughtfully examine Bill C-7 with the best interests of Canadians in mind.
On September 11, 2019, the Superior Court of Quebec found that it was unconstitutional to limit access to medical assistance in dying to people nearing the end of life. Although the current bill before the House, Bill C-7, responds to the court's ruling, it goes far beyond the scope of Quebec's decision and it weakens the important safeguards that have been put in place under Bill C-14.
Since the Liberals put this legislation forward, I have heard from hundreds of my constituents in a matter of days. They have shared with me that they are very concerned about the bill.
I will use my time today to share a number of the concerns they have raised and to issue a thoughtful word of caution to this place.
First, there is a parliamentary review of the original legislation scheduled for June. The question has to be asked. Why are we rushing to expand the scope of the current legislation?
We are literally discussing life and death issues. Death, something so final, deserves just a little of our time, our attention and due diligence.
The government's original legislation went through a very lengthy consultation process. This time, however, the consultation only lasted a couple of weeks. That is not the sole concern I have. In addition to that, when I look at this survey, the questions that were asked were quite vague and the multiple choice answers that were provided were drafted in such a way that the party in power could interpret those answers to the secure findings it desired. It was unclear and therefore unhelpful, if we really are going to respect the voices of Canadians.
However, the fact that this survey was so unhelpful goes to show that the current government was not interested in hearing from Canadians. The current government was interested in pushing through its agenda and therefore being able to twist and manipulate the survey data to its end, which is absolutely wrong.
It is wrong, because it goes against the very essence of this place, which is 338 common people representing common people. This place exists for us to deliberate the issues that matter most in our country and to speak up on behalf of Canadians. Unfortunately, what we have before us is a bill that represents the Liberal agenda rather than the voices of the Canadian people. This is wrong.
With legislation of this magnitude, I would urge the members of the House to slow the process down, to consult extensively and for us to come back to the table.
I cannot think of another responsibility we carry as legislators that is more crucial, more obligatory than our duty to protect the most vulnerable in Canadian society. Therefore, we have to take every effort to alleviate any possibility for abuse or misuse based on what is in this bill or based on what is left out of the legislation.
My Conservative colleagues have raised many concerns and have given multiple examples where extreme liberties have been taken with physician-assisted suicide where there are looser restrictions in place. I do not wish to rehash all those examples here today, but I certainly will draw the House's attention to a few.
Sadly, members across the floor have disregarded many of those examples provided by my Conservative colleagues. They have suggested that the differing jurisdictions and rules should deem these cases irrelevant in this place.
We have the opportunity and even the duty to learn from other countries and the way they have legislated, to learn from cases within our own country and to make changes that are necessary to properly protect Canadians.
It is undeniable that as one's medical condition progresses, the individual inevitably become more vulnerable. It is our responsibility to stand up for the vulnerable.
Individuals could lose their ability to speak, to move autonomously or they could lack the coherent and cognitive ability to be able to interact correctly. When an individual reaches this state, this is precisely when the safeguards around MAID, medical assistance in dying, should be strong enough to keep them safe rather than weak enough to make them vulnerable.
The proposed change in the bill would allow for advanced directive, which takes away the need for the patient to consent immediately before having medical assistance in dying administered. This proposed change is alarming and dangerous as well to the Canadian public.
When we are faced with difficult physical ailments, they often fluctuate in intensity and as they do, our decision-making ability shifts. Think for example about people who are suffering from terminal cancer. They have been advised by medical professionals that their quality of life is likely to deteriorate to a certain degree by a specific date. Let us say that does not happen. Those cancer patients who want to avoid unnecessary pain have already given the date on which their lives will be terminated.
Changes take place. What if the diagnosis the doctor gave was not right? What if those patients have actually faired much better? Health care professionals could in fact euthanize these individuals at any point without needing to obtain consent immediately before death is administered.
This should concern all of us because of the vulnerability that is in place here. There should be a requirement for contemporaneous consent. We cannot allow one's former self to dictate the will of his or her present self. Minds change, circumstances change, so final consent is an absolute necessity.
This example has been raised in the House at least once before, but it is worth raising again because it is close to home.
Taylor Hyatt is a staffer on the Hill. I had the opportunity to interact with her personally. She has a linguistics degree from Carleton University. She lives on her own and she loves her life. Taylor has cerebral palsy and is restricted to a wheelchair. She lives an incredible life and contributes to Canadian society in a multitude of ways.
Two years ago Taylor went to the hospital because she was feeling quite ill. The doctors did some tests and they said that whatever it was it really was affecting her breathing, and if it came to it, should they administer oxygen.
Taylor was quite surprised at the question. Of course she would want oxygen, that seems like a very basic thing. It is not like it was life support or something that people often take, those decisions of that magnitude, quite seriously. It was the simple administration of oxygen. A few seconds later, the doctor asked "Are you sure?", and he said it in such a way that he was actually applying pressure on her to reconsider her decision, as if to say that her life lacked the value that she felt it had.
That is atrocious. If we are sending that message to the most vulnerable in our society, then what have we become?
I would like to also address one other thing, and that is the need for palliative care. If we are going to talk about administering death to Canadians, then why are we not having a conversation around long-term care? If we are going to talk about the dignity of a human life, then what about those who want to live a dignified life right up until their last breath?
Why is the government not moving forward with the plan it promised to put in place with regard to palliative care? Why is it not spending the money that needs to be spent on preserving the dignity of those who wish to choose this type of death? These are essential questions with which the House must wrestle.
I would caution those within this place to take a step back, because we want our country to be one that supports all people.