Analysis · beta

Rosemarie Falk

Conservative on Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act 2026-11-04

Replying to Dave Epp (Conservative)

“Madam Speaker, why? This place has arrived at a consensus, albeit it took some time, on the first part of the bill. All the disabled groups, mental illness groups and everyone else recognized that the path the government was going down was the wrong one, in allowing mental illness to be the sole driver for MAID. Why combine it with an expansion process that needs far more study, irrespective of where one is on the spectrum? Why combine it, with the deadline that the House is facing? What is the logical path for combining those two issues?”

Not analysed yet

A requested analysis is usually ready within half an hour; come back to this page or reload it.

Madam Speaker, I believe it is just for political gain. I believe the Liberals wanted to wedge and thought they could wedge us on this. At the end of the day, less than a month ago, that party voted against Bill C-218. It could have already been in committee. I heard a Liberal member say they had an issue with some of the verbiage. That could have been amended in committee. This could have been moved along, and we—