Analysis · beta

Pierre Poilievre

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

Replying to Ben Carr (Liberal)

“Madam Speaker, I respect a number of the things the Leader of the Opposition raised. I know it is a very difficult topic for many Canadians. I can remember my father, in the final stages of his cancer battle, struggling with what he wanted to do in terms of his directions. As we know, the bill would decriminalize advance directives. It would not set the framework. It would put forward the conversation, of course, that would take place between the provinces, but really, in this chamber it is about decriminalization. Does the Leader of the Opposition see a path in which, if he were satisfied with a framework that alleviated the concerns he raised in his speech, he would accept the decriminalized element of the process that this bill tries to achieve?”

Not analysed yet

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

Madam Speaker, no I do not, because I do not believe that someone can grant pre-emptive consent for a subsequent death. There is a very serious risk no matter what we do. Let us assume that I had answered the question with “yes”. That framework would take time. Serious and deadly risks would come with creating a system of rules for people to grant permission to die much later on once their ability to consent is gone, and that would require immense study and surgical precision, which cannot be done with a bill that would be rammed through before Christmas. This bill needs to be split so that we can ban MAID for mental illness and give hope to these people, but at the same time not make the deadly mistake of expanding into the unknown without doing our research.