Analysis · beta

Garnett Genuis

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

Replying to John Barlow (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I am concerned about Bill C-41 is that the Liberals claim it to be the MAID safeguards act. They have had multiple opportunities to adhere to the safeguards they have allegedly put in place in previous MAID legislation, but it is very clear that they have blown by those safeguards. MAID has expanded since the very first bill in 2017. I wonder if my colleague shares those concerns. To say there are safeguards in place is just factually not the case.”

Not analysed yet

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly there has been a failure with respect to the implementation of the safeguards. A core reason for that is the requirement that it be two doctors who assess, but it could be any two doctors. Thirty doctors could be consulted, and we could find two who have an opinion that is different from that of the other 28, and then it is able to proceed. I do not know how we can implement an advance directive framework within which people can shop for different doctors and then say that a certain two doctors think the conditions of the advance directive have been met, when another two do not think it has been met. For example, the son has the two doctors he has consulted, but the daughter has the two doctors she has consulted. It is a mess. It is a recipe for conflict. It does not involve safeguards when we can shop around and find two doctors to agree with us, potentially anywhere in the country.