Analysis · beta

Andrew Lawton

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

Replying to Luc Thériault (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows full well that the role of the state is not to presume it knows better than the person who is suffering what is best for that individual in a matter as intimate as their own death. The role of the state is to ensure the conditions necessary for a free and informed choice. This is what I would ask my colleague: On what basis should the state infringe upon or restrict the right to self-determination of a person whose mental illness is resistant to treatment, as long as their decision-making capacity remains intact? On what grounds should chronic suffering that has become intolerable be considered reasonable? On what grounds would discrimination be reasonable?”

Not analysed yet

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

Mr. Speaker, I am never going to argue with someone who is advocating for smaller government, but I know there is a very inconsistent way in which the member is pushing for that. The role of the state, at its core, is to protect those who cannot protect themselves, to protect the vulnerable. What we have seen in the current MAID regime, as evidenced by the litany of cases I could and have referenced about the lack of safeguards, is that the system is in many ways preying on people who do not have the capacity or independence to resist it. That is exactly why it is important to get legislation like this right. It is why I believe advance requests can never properly account for all of the issues that have been raised in the course of the debate this evening, which I do not believe can be rectified.