Cathay Wagantall's speech to Parliament against Bill C-7 on euthanasia
The following is the Hansard speech by Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton - Melville) on October 19, 2020
Cathay Wagantall
Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak today, but I find it difficult to speak of another attempt by the Liberal government to endanger the most vulnerable in our society.
After just four years, when the original Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Law was passed through Bill C-14 , we find ourselves contemplating a law that would further relax restrictions, remove safeguards, and cloud our country's understanding of the sanctity of life and the role of government ultimately. -life decisions. Once again, we have been told that in order to uphold the rights guaranteed by the Charter for some, we must put the rights and freedoms of others at risk.
I did not support the bill C-14 for many reasons. The first is the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada relied on such controversial and flawed legislation, which has been shown to be poorly applied around the world. The Liberals have also chosen to broaden the scope of the bill, going well beyond the Carter decision. Another reason is that it has been placed before and continues
to overshadow any major hospice palliative care initiative.
In 2019, the prime minister promised to expand the eligibility criteria and, on September 11 of last year, the Superior Court of Quebec ruled that it was unconstitutional to limit assisted suicide or euthanasia only to those whose death is reasonably foreseeable . Without even appealing the decision and without seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court, which has long been involved in this matter, the Liberals accepted the decision. They are now rushing to change the law for our entire country.
They gave Canadians just two weeks to make their views heard on this deeply personal and complicated issue through a flawed online consultation questionnaire. The use of convoluted and biased language left little to the imagination of how the government planned to legislate on assisted dying. I too tried to fill it out, and I would say that many opponents would have been discouraged
from participating just because of the language used.
With such a flawed method and with no idea whether the comments reflect, even from a distance, the real opinions of Canadians, how can the government pass this bill in good faith? This is a rhetorical question because it does not seem to matter to these Liberals. It is clear that they used this brief feedback window to satisfy the need for a consultation process.
We also know that the government has ignored its own timeline for reviewing the original assisted suicide law, Bill C-14 . It was scheduled for this summer, and instead we were presented with this reckless bill. In the midst of COVID, this was still something very important. Without proper consideration and input from the Supreme Court, the House has been asked to dramatically expand the scope of assisted suicide and euthanasia without a sufficiently clear understanding of whether the current regime is systematically interpreted or correctly applied.
The law project C-7 is hastily adopted. It's worrying. In reading this bill, I see elements that go beyond the scope of the decision of the Superior Court of Quebec, namely that Bill C-7 would eliminate the waiting period of 10 days between the date of signing of
the request and the day of the procedure. is implemented.
The application of the law relating to those whose death is reasonably foreseeable has been problematic from the outset of this debate. We know that a person's reasonably foreseeable death is a flexible estimate, taking into account their entire medical situation, without a prognosis having necessarily been made as to the precise length of time remaining. Eliminating the 10-day waiting period for people whose death is reasonably foreseeable would create the conditions for a person whose lifespan remains indefinite, perhaps years, to be rushed into the decision to receive assisted suicide and euthanasia.
As well as simply eliminating what most Canadians see as a reasonable period of reflection, this element of the bill also ignores the possibility of medical advancements and improved methods of treatment in an incredibly innovative medical science environment. As Cardinal Collins said, Bill C-7 creates the conditions under which a person can seek medical assistance in dying faster than the wait time
for a gym membership or condominium purchase.
I also do not see a logical reason why the government would reduce the number of independent witnesses required to sign the request. He went from two to one. The government has even relaxed the definition of someone who can serve as a witness, including medical professionals or personal caregivers, even those who are paid to perform euthanasia and assisted suicide on a daily basis. It's in subsection 1 (8).
We can certainly agree that for the vast majority of those requesting euthanasia and assisted suicide, the requirement for two independent persons to witness an end-of-life request is a reasonable safeguard. How do the Liberals plan to protect patients from possible malpractice? How does the government plan to ensure that claimants are presented with a myriad of treatment options rather than just one opinion?
The legislation continues to be a series of safeguards that the physician must observe before providing assisted suicide to those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. One of these guarantees would require a doctor to discuss with the person
the means available to alleviate their suffering, including palliative care.
The guarantee is even lower for those whose death is reasonably foreseeable, requiring the doctor to simply inform the person of these vital options. The government broke its promise to invest $ 3 billion in long-term care, which includes palliative care.
There does not appear to be any political will to improve palliative care.
Canadians are also calling on the government to develop a long-awaited national strategy for palliative care. Canadians crave real solutions to end-of-life care. The government seems too willing to ignore the 70% of Canadians who do not have access to palliative care and instead tries to impose an imperfect and universal plan on them. We can already see the consequences of advancing an assisted
dying program when palliative care is neglected.
In British Columbia, the Delta Hospice Society was deprived of 94% of its operating budget for refusing to provide euthanasia in a facility intended for the provision of palliative care. Despite repeated attempts to defend his faith-based, Charter-protected objection to the duty to perform euthanasia and reach a compromise in good faith, 10 palliative care beds are now under
threat and will likely be excluded from funding .
Why do the Liberals continue to ignore the voices of those with a different perspective on the issue of end-of-life care? People who seek palliative care seek it for a reason. They don't want medically assisted death. In fact, what happened in British Columbia
was an attempt to redefine what constitutes palliative care.
In fact, the Fraser Health Authority's decision flies in the face of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians, which has made it clear that euthanasia and assisted suicide are distinct from palliative care. I caution Canadians not to view the Delta Hospice Society situation as isolated. The government has shown little interest in supporting palliative care, and I would not be surprised by further attacks on the ability of Canadians to choose to end their lives naturally.
In The Globe and Mail, Sarah Gray explained it well, saying: “The hospice is not a place where people come to die. This is where they come to live - to live well the little time they have left. It is a place of celebration, connection, comfort and support. It is a safe place for the dying and the afflicted. In the words of Cardinal Collins, let's work to create a “culture of care”, rather than rushing towards a culture of “death on demand”.
The government would also be wise to remember that much of the debate on the Bill C-14 a revolved around calls for a strong framework of conscience protection for physicians involved throughout the end of life process. At committee, witnesses said that protection of conscience should be included in the government's legislative response to Carter v. Canada.
The Canadian Medical Association has confirmed that protecting the conscience of physicians will not affect access to physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. Its statistics show that 30% of physicians in Canada, or 24,000, are prepared to provide it. I live in rural Canada and I can assure members that many provisions are not available to me directly where I live.
Unfortunately, the Liberals did not defend the conscience rights of Canadians in the bill C-14 . I also found it disappointing that they did not support, in the last Parliament, a vital bill introduced by David Anderson in the bill. C-418 , the law on protection of freedom of conscience. It would have been a criminal offense to intimidate or force a health professional to participate in the proceedings. Dismissal or refusal to employ a health professional who refuses to participate directly or indirectly in MAID would also have made it a criminal offense.
Here we are four years later, and Bill C-7 also lacks any provision that would protect the rights of Canadians under section 2. In Canada, everyone has freedom of conscience and religion under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No one has the right to demand all services from all providers under all circumstances. As David said, protections are needed for physicians and healthcare providers who are unwilling to abandon their core ethics when they are at the bedside. Access to euthanasia
and conscientious objection are not mutually exclusive.
As lawmakers, we must ask ourselves where the Liberals draw the line. There will always be the voice of those in our society who feel that the limits and guarantees are too strict. When will that be enough for the Liberal government? How far are they prepared to go? What message do we send to the most vulnerable and fragile in our society?
For the past five years, I have stood up for our veterans. I know countless veterans seem capable of dealing with debilitating physical injuries, but they are extremely vulnerable when it comes to mental health. We are all concerned about the number of them who choose to kill themselves because of complications after serving our country. It is antithetical to try to prevent them from committing suicide, while telling them that there are possibilities designed by the government to do so.
The law project C-7 does not protect conscience and does not protect vulnerable people.
Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak today, but I find it difficult to speak of another attempt by the Liberal government to endanger the most vulnerable in our society.
After just four years, when the original Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Law was passed through Bill C-14 , we find ourselves contemplating a law that would further relax restrictions, remove safeguards, and cloud our country's understanding of the sanctity of life and the role of government ultimately. -life decisions. Once again, we have been told that in order to uphold the rights guaranteed by the Charter for some, we must put the rights and freedoms of others at risk.
I did not support the bill C-14 for many reasons. The first is the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada relied on such controversial and flawed legislation, which has been shown to be poorly applied around the world. The Liberals have also chosen to broaden the scope of the bill, going well beyond the Carter decision. Another reason is that it has been placed before and continues
to overshadow any major hospice palliative care initiative.
In 2019, the prime minister promised to expand the eligibility criteria and, on September 11 of last year, the Superior Court of Quebec ruled that it was unconstitutional to limit assisted suicide or euthanasia only to those whose death is reasonably foreseeable . Without even appealing the decision and without seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court, which has long been involved in this matter, the Liberals accepted the decision. They are now rushing to change the law for our entire country.
They gave Canadians just two weeks to make their views heard on this deeply personal and complicated issue through a flawed online consultation questionnaire. The use of convoluted and biased language left little to the imagination of how the government planned to legislate on assisted dying. I too tried to fill it out, and I would say that many opponents would have been discouraged
from participating just because of the language used.
With such a flawed method and with no idea whether the comments reflect, even from a distance, the real opinions of Canadians, how can the government pass this bill in good faith? This is a rhetorical question because it does not seem to matter to these Liberals. It is clear that they used this brief feedback window to satisfy the need for a consultation process.
We also know that the government has ignored its own timeline for reviewing the original assisted suicide law, Bill C-14 . It was scheduled for this summer, and instead we were presented with this reckless bill. In the midst of COVID, this was still something very important. Without proper consideration and input from the Supreme Court, the House has been asked to dramatically expand the scope of assisted suicide and euthanasia without a sufficiently clear understanding of whether the current regime is systematically interpreted or correctly applied.
The law project C-7 is hastily adopted. It's worrying. In reading this bill, I see elements that go beyond the scope of the decision of the Superior Court of Quebec, namely that Bill C-7 would eliminate the waiting period of 10 days between the date of signing of
the request and the day of the procedure. is implemented.
The application of the law relating to those whose death is reasonably foreseeable has been problematic from the outset of this debate. We know that a person's reasonably foreseeable death is a flexible estimate, taking into account their entire medical situation, without a prognosis having necessarily been made as to the precise length of time remaining. Eliminating the 10-day waiting period for people whose death is reasonably foreseeable would create the conditions for a person whose lifespan remains indefinite, perhaps years, to be rushed into the decision to receive assisted suicide and euthanasia.
As well as simply eliminating what most Canadians see as a reasonable period of reflection, this element of the bill also ignores the possibility of medical advancements and improved methods of treatment in an incredibly innovative medical science environment. As Cardinal Collins said, Bill C-7 creates the conditions under which a person can seek medical assistance in dying faster than the wait time
for a gym membership or condominium purchase.
I also do not see a logical reason why the government would reduce the number of independent witnesses required to sign the request. He went from two to one. The government has even relaxed the definition of someone who can serve as a witness, including medical professionals or personal caregivers, even those who are paid to perform euthanasia and assisted suicide on a daily basis. It's in subsection 1 (8).
We can certainly agree that for the vast majority of those requesting euthanasia and assisted suicide, the requirement for two independent persons to witness an end-of-life request is a reasonable safeguard. How do the Liberals plan to protect patients from possible malpractice? How does the government plan to ensure that claimants are presented with a myriad of treatment options rather than just one opinion?
The legislation continues to be a series of safeguards that the physician must observe before providing assisted suicide to those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. One of these guarantees would require a doctor to discuss with the person
the means available to alleviate their suffering, including palliative care.
The guarantee is even lower for those whose death is reasonably foreseeable, requiring the doctor to simply inform the person of these vital options. The government broke its promise to invest $ 3 billion in long-term care, which includes palliative care.
There does not appear to be any political will to improve palliative care.
Canadians are also calling on the government to develop a long-awaited national strategy for palliative care. Canadians crave real solutions to end-of-life care. The government seems too willing to ignore the 70% of Canadians who do not have access to palliative care and instead tries to impose an imperfect and universal plan on them. We can already see the consequences of advancing an assisted
dying program when palliative care is neglected.
In British Columbia, the Delta Hospice Society was deprived of 94% of its operating budget for refusing to provide euthanasia in a facility intended for the provision of palliative care. Despite repeated attempts to defend his faith-based, Charter-protected objection to the duty to perform euthanasia and reach a compromise in good faith, 10 palliative care beds are now under
threat and will likely be excluded from funding .
Why do the Liberals continue to ignore the voices of those with a different perspective on the issue of end-of-life care? People who seek palliative care seek it for a reason. They don't want medically assisted death. In fact, what happened in British Columbia
was an attempt to redefine what constitutes palliative care.
In fact, the Fraser Health Authority's decision flies in the face of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians, which has made it clear that euthanasia and assisted suicide are distinct from palliative care. I caution Canadians not to view the Delta Hospice Society situation as isolated. The government has shown little interest in supporting palliative care, and I would not be surprised by further attacks on the ability of Canadians to choose to end their lives naturally.
In The Globe and Mail, Sarah Gray explained it well, saying: “The hospice is not a place where people come to die. This is where they come to live - to live well the little time they have left. It is a place of celebration, connection, comfort and support. It is a safe place for the dying and the afflicted. In the words of Cardinal Collins, let's work to create a “culture of care”, rather than rushing towards a culture of “death on demand”.
The government would also be wise to remember that much of the debate on the Bill C-14 a revolved around calls for a strong framework of conscience protection for physicians involved throughout the end of life process. At committee, witnesses said that protection of conscience should be included in the government's legislative response to Carter v. Canada.
The Canadian Medical Association has confirmed that protecting the conscience of physicians will not affect access to physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. Its statistics show that 30% of physicians in Canada, or 24,000, are prepared to provide it. I live in rural Canada and I can assure members that many provisions are not available to me directly where I live.
Unfortunately, the Liberals did not defend the conscience rights of Canadians in the bill C-14 . I also found it disappointing that they did not support, in the last Parliament, a vital bill introduced by David Anderson in the bill. C-418 , the law on protection of freedom of conscience. It would have been a criminal offense to intimidate or force a health professional to participate in the proceedings. Dismissal or refusal to employ a health professional who refuses to participate directly or indirectly in MAID would also have made it a criminal offense.
Here we are four years later, and Bill C-7 also lacks any provision that would protect the rights of Canadians under section 2. In Canada, everyone has freedom of conscience and religion under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No one has the right to demand all services from all providers under all circumstances. As David said, protections are needed for physicians and healthcare providers who are unwilling to abandon their core ethics when they are at the bedside. Access to euthanasia
and conscientious objection are not mutually exclusive.
As lawmakers, we must ask ourselves where the Liberals draw the line. There will always be the voice of those in our society who feel that the limits and guarantees are too strict. When will that be enough for the Liberal government? How far are they prepared to go? What message do we send to the most vulnerable and fragile in our society?
For the past five years, I have stood up for our veterans. I know countless veterans seem capable of dealing with debilitating physical injuries, but they are extremely vulnerable when it comes to mental health. We are all concerned about the number of them who choose to kill themselves because of complications after serving our country. It is antithetical to try to prevent them from committing suicide, while telling them that there are possibilities designed by the government to do so.
The law project C-7 does not protect conscience and does not protect vulnerable people.