Parliament passed Bill C-7 without amendments. Contact the Senators.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Now that parliament passed Bill C-7, without amendments, you need to contact the Senators. (Link to the list of Senators).

Based on the language of Bill C-7 and the fact that some parts of the legislation appear to be unconstitutional (if Bill C-7 is passed, without amendments, future court decisions will once again widen the application of the law) therefore it is possible that the Senate will amend the bill, something that the Liberal government refused to do.

Senator Denise Batters, the Conservative vice-chair of the legal affairs committee told CBC news that:

"Minister Lametti is kidding himself if he thinks that the Senate will rubber-stamp this bill. And if he is under the illusion that it's only Conservative senators who have serious concerns about this legislation, he clearly wasn't paying attention when he testified before our Senate legal committee two weeks ago," she said.

After Bill C-7 passed in the House of Commons by a 212 - 107 vote, with only two Liberals voting against Bill C-7, Justice Minister David Lametti asked the Superior Court of Quebec for an extension until February 26, 2021, to pass Bill C-7. This means that the time restraint placed on the Senate to pass Bill C-7 may be lifted.

You need to contact the Senators. (Link to the list of Senators).

Name of Senator 

Senate of Canada 

Ottawa ON K1A 0A4

What does Bill C-7 do?

1. Bill C-7 removes the requirement in the law that a person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable in order to qualify for MAiD, as required by Truchon. Therefore people who are not terminally ill can die by MAiD. The Truchon decision only required this amendment to the legislation. 
2. Bill C-7 permits a doctor or nurse practitioner to lethally inject a person who cannot consent, if that person was previously approved for MAiD. This contravenes the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision which stated that only competent people could die by MAiD. 
3. Bill C-7 waives the ten-day waiting period when a person is deemed to be “terminally ill.” Thus a person could request MAiD on a "bad day" and die the same day. Studies prove that the “will to live” fluctuates. 
4. Bill C-7 creates a two-track law. A person whose death is deemed to be reasonably foreseeable would have no waiting period while a person whose death is deemed to be not reasonably foreseeable would have a 90-day waiting period. 
5. Bill C-7 reduces the number of witnesses from two to one, and the one witness could be connected to the care of the person. When abuse is done to a vulnerable person, it is often done by a family members or care-giver.
   
6. Bill C-7 claims to prevent MAiD for people with mental illness. The law permits MAiD for people who are physically or psychologically suffering that they find intolerable and that cannot be relieved in a way that the person considers acceptable.Bill C-7 states: Exclusion (2.1) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability.
   

The government claims that (2.1) excludes MAiD for mental illness alone. To exclude MAiD for mental illness alone, the bill must define psychological suffering to exclude euthanasia for mental illness. Mental illness is currently considered a form of psychological suffering which MAiD is permitted for in the law.

Bill C-7 needs to define the phrase “natural death is reasonably foreseeable,” and it needs to define the terms psychological suffering and mental illness. Without defining the parameters of the law, the law will be unequally applied and it will be applied beyond the claimed scope of the bill.

Bill C-7 does not protect the conscience rights of medical professionals who oppose MAiD.

Bill C-7 expands the law to permit anyone, who considers their physical or psychological suffering to be intolerable, to qualify for death by lethal injection, even if effective medical treatments for their condition exists. The lack of parameters directly threatens the lives of people with disabilities. 

When the government legalized euthansia in 2016, the legislation required that the law receive a full review starting in June 2020. That review has not been done and yet the government is expanding the euthanasia law.

There was no requirement in Truchon court decision to remove the 10 day reflection period. Studies show that the will to live fluctuates over time.

Removing the requirement of consent at the time of death is inconsistent with the Supreme court Carter decision and it denies a person the right to change their mind.

As stated earlier, the additional changes to the MAiD law were not required by Truchon court decision. These changes are premature, at best, considering that the five-year review of the MAiD law which was to begin in June 2020, has not yet been done.

The Senate needs to shelve Bill C-7 until after the five-year review is completed. If the government insists on passing Bill C-7 then it must limit the legislative changes to the Truchon decision which only required removing the phrase: “natural death is reasonably foreseeable.”