Analysis · beta

Jenny Kwan

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

Replying to Luc Thériault (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right to point out that Svend Robinson and Sue Rodriguez advanced the discussion on MAID in 1993 in British Columbia. I would like to say something about the constitutional nature of equitable access to advance requests throughout the country whether or not a parliament passes legislation. I would say that this could be a reasonable infringement, according to the Supreme Court, given that the provinces are responsible for providing end-of-life care. A debate could take place in provincial legislatures that do not have a law. It could even become an election issue, in which case there would surely be an appeal to the Supreme Court if a government ever opted for a total prohibition. As for structural vulnerabilities, I agree that it is absolutely essential to improve people’s living conditions, whatever those living conditions may be. If we are talking about structural vulnerabilities in relation to mental illness, a scientific study conducted by Downar and Quinn says that structural marginalization is not a key factor in requests for MAID. Here is a quote: ...according to all available indicators....they clearly refute the notion that medical assistance in dying is driven by marginalization or inadequate service delivery on a significant scale in Canada. While there may be exceptions, the anecdotal cases cited to support this claim rarely stand up to scrutiny. We are therefore in favour of better living conditions, but in the case of someone who has been suffering from mental illness for decades and who does not respond to treatment, I have a problem with someone like that being told to simply carry on suffering.”

Not analysed yet

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

Mr. Speaker, two important issues were raised in that question. One is a constitutional question. I note that in the special committee’s report, there were dissenting opinions that called for the government, in fact, to raise a reference question to the courts on the constitutionality of denying people with mental illness access to MAID. The government decided not to exercise that right, and I think that is an important question that should be raised at committee and explored. On the other issue, with respect to the lack of support and services for people, there is one study that the member referenced. There are also a lot of other lived experiences, most certainly, of advocates, people who are advocates for disability, for mental health, for people living in palliative care, etc., who say it is absolutely critical that services be made available. Otherwise, it is possible that some people might opt for MAID. That is the thing we do not want to allow to happen. Hence, I hope that in the upcoming budget to be tabled tomorrow, the government steps it up and matches its words with action, particularly in support of mental health, and provides the needed support across the country for people who need to access treatment.