Contact us now: Phone: +111111111



Liberals Euthanize Efforts to Block C-7 Senate Amendments

Tue, March 16, 2021   |   Author: Taylor   |   Volume 28    Issue 11 | Share: Gab | Facebook | Twitter   

There’s nothing new about the Liberals using the Senate, or the courts, or local city councils to do their dirty work. There are simply times when the process is more transparent. This is one of them.

On Thursday, March 11, Liberals shut down debate on Bill C-7 with its Senate amendments and forced a vote, which was carried 180 to 149 in support of this deadly legislation. C-7 now goes back to the Senate for final approval. The Senate amendment that raised the most eyebrows was its sweeping inclusion of people with mental illness in C-7’s expansion of legalized medically-assisted suicide. Even the NDP choked on that obvious disrespect for the lives of those who suffer depression or other psychological conditions. Siding with Conservatives (!), they offered some resistance to the amendment but were overruled by the coalition of Liberal and Bloc MPs who pushed it through. Their efforts to block the passage of C-7 with Senate amendments (a bill that most of the NDP had previously supported) were promptly given a lethal injection . . . and without their consent.

Politicians and all Canadians should take this as a lesson in how the slippery slope works in practice. The phrase “slippery slope” has, for years, been applied to many different topics and tactics. It has been usually sneered at by the Left, when applied to moral issues, but there is a very real dynamic at work, having to do with inertia and momentum. Once a traditional value, such as the sanctity of life, has been pried loose from its foundations . . . once it becomes socially acceptable to end some lives under certain conditions . . . the validity of those conditions will always be challenged in the courts.

That’s what happened with MAiD. That’s what happened with C-7. In 2016, a court decision gave Justin Trudeau an excuse to establish physician-assisted suicide, so he did. The public was assured that strict safeguards would be in place to ensure vulnerable people would not be killed under the legislation. That was a lie, but it got the ball rolling. Five years later and with 20,000 having been killed by MAiD, many Canadians have gotten used to the idea of doctors killing people.

Then the slippery slope we (and others) had warned about began to come to fruition. The premature ending of life gained momentum and the “safeguards” became impediments to the goals of the so-called progressives. In due course, a judge (Quebec Superior Court Justice Christine Baudouin) issued a ruling that challenged the conditions laid out in the original legislation.

Once again, a single unelected judge dictated to Parliament a requirement to change the law. The Liberals, once more, used the convenience of a court ruling to expand the MAiD regime: to eliminate wait-times, to remove the requirement that a person about to be euthanized be capable of giving informed consent, and to eliminate the requirement that a person’s death be “reasonably foreseeable.” They did all that in the House before sending C-7 to the Senate. But that wasn’t enough for the Liberal-appointed majority of Senators. Going far beyond the court ruling, they added an amendment that would allow mentally-ill people to be put to death under the provisions of MAiD.

Protecting vulnerable, mentally-ill people from MAiD was one of the original safeguards that politicians used to allay the concerns of lobbyists for the disabled and of the many citizens who opposed the original MAiD legislation. It must be embarrassing now, for the NDP, to see that the protections they assured their constituents were in place were so quickly discarded.

Along with which, there is still no federal conscience protection for doctors. There is still no plan for a national palliative care program. One of the reasons many MAiD participants choose to have a doctor end their lives is the lack of meaningful comfort care in their last days; if quality palliative care were more universally available, many of today’s MAiD victims would not choose premature death.

The Liberals managed to enlist the support of the Bloc in pushing forward these radical changes to MAiD in spite of the moral and ethical concerns. With a few notable exceptions, almost all the MPs voted along party lines on the amendment that added access to MAiD for people with mental illness, an amendment that made many Canadians uncomfortable. In addition to the substance of the bill and its amendments, of equal concern is the abuse of power displayed in the arrogant bully tactics the Liberals employed to ram this amended bill through.

Politicians and voters should consider these things when making decisions in the future. Do we want a government that rams through its radical policies simply because it can? Do we want a government that cares so little for the opinions of others that it prevents a full and frank discussion of controversial legislation?

The CHP is committed not only to the protection of innocent human life, but also to a democratic process that includes true “sober second thought” on issues of national importance. The slippery slope is real; abandoning democratic principles and ruling from the bench or from the PMO are symptoms of a corrupt and decaying government. The CHP calls on all MPs, Senators, and Judges to remember the Charter Preamble and make decisions for the good of the nation based on “ . . . the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” To reject God’s wisdom is itself a form of national suicide and it will not be painless.

The CHP continues to act as a conscience to Canada on many issues of moral significance. Please join your voice and efforts with ours.

Download PDF Version

Share to Gab

Other Commentary by Taylor: