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.
