“We all agree that mental illness should not qualify someone for medically assisted dying, and we have studied that part. But we have not studied or debated advance requests at all. The government should pass the mental illness part now and consult experts before rushing into advance requests.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree on the mental illness component of the bill, and my colleague highlighted that there have been great discussions and great studies at committees, both at the Senate and in this chamber. However, on advance requests, there have been no studies, no debates and no conversations that we have seen in the House, and it seems that the government is rushing through something that should not be rushed, especially when it comes to matters of life or death. Can the member stand up and tell us why the government is trying to ram something through instead of working with us, passing the mental illness component to satisfy the time restriction we have of March 2027 and listening to experts before it puts policy forward?”

“The member says this issue is not about political parties. I want to know why the Liberals voted against a bill that would have dealt with mental illness and medically assisted dying right away.”

“Mr. Speaker, I felt the weightiness of what the member across the way spoke about. I also felt the weightiness in his voice as he delivered his remarks. I want to thank him for that, for taking this so seriously. In the majority of his remarks, he spoke about mental illness. He did say this is not a partisan issue, but I wonder why the Liberals voted against Bill C-218. This would have immediately moved on, and we would have been well under way to ensuring that the mental illness component would be looked at right away. How come they voted against that?”

“I want the government to split this bill in two. We all agree that people should not get medically assisted dying only for mental illness, and we can pass that part right away. But letting people ask for it in advance needs more study with doctors and provinces so we do not make deadly mistakes.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my great colleague from Cloverdale—Langley City. In hearing the debates and discussions, I would say we all know this is a tough topic to talk about. It is an issue that affects everyone deeply. I am not here to change anyone’s mind; I am here to raise concerns that I see on this issue. I want to start by first sharing a story with the House. In 2014, my uncle was admitted to the hospital and then was moved to the ICU. He was not breathing on his own and had internal bleeding. The doctors said to us that his time was up and that he was not going to make it. We were told to make the funeral arrangements. My cousin and I went to the funeral home, booked the funeral, blew his picture up for the ceremony and called our family in the U.K. We were by his side for what we thought were his last moments. The doctor then asked us if the family was done spending time with the patient, and we said no. She said she wanted us to witness his transition into his new life. My aunt asked what the doctor meant by “new life”. The doctor said he was not going to make it. He had internal bleeding in his brain, he was not breathing and he was in the ICU. My aunt said that God brought him in and God would take him out. Thankfully she said that, because he was alive for 12 years after that. He just passed away in August. He got to see his children’s wedding, and he got to play with his grandkids. Those are moments with him that we will never forget. Had we taken the doctor’s advice back then, he would not have been with us for them. I was in the emergency room of another hospital, where people go to get help, and on the wall was a massive TV that asked, “Have you considered MAID?” Patients go to hospitals to get help and support, yet the hospital was pushing MAID. This is a very touchy topic for everyone. I understand that the Liberals are now having conversations on this topic, and that is fine, but in this bill, there are two main components. One is the mental illness side and the other is advance requests. All parliamentarians have said that mental illness should not be the sole illness when it comes to MAID. We all agreed to it, yet the Liberals decided to vote that down a few weeks ago. They had the opportunity to have a bill that would satisfy the Supreme Court’s requirements and meet the deadline for 2027, but they voted it down. We all agree on the mental illness component in this bill. The Conservatives are united on that. That is why we have asked the government to work with us. We should work together and pass the bill. We should also split the bill. We all agree on the mental illness side, which would take care of the time constraint being put on us and would save lives, but the Liberals said, no, they would not do that. They have added the advance request to the equation. They are two separate issues that require two separate discussions. I understand that the Liberals want to rush this bill through, but Canadians want an open, honest discussion. We want to bring in medical experts, provincial leaders, researchers, families, veterans and folks from indigenous communities to share opinions. The member opposite said that we have to get this right. Absolutely, we do. Let us put the mental illness side to rest. We all support it, and we would pass it tomorrow if the Liberals had a desire to do that. We would pass it at all stages tomorrow so we could focus on the issues that are still outstanding on advance requests. That seems like a common-sense idea. That seems like the right thing to do. The statistics on MAID are insane. In Canada, 5% of all deaths are by MAID. Over 5% is one in 20. One in 10 people has said they know someone who has been offered MAID for a treatable condition. Safeguards have to be in place. We need to make sure there are safeguards protecting the most vulnerable. I have talked to provincial leaders and spoken to doctors about the bill who are saying to hold on and are asking what the rush is. They ask, “Why are they combining these two issues into one vote?” They are confused. I understand that my colleague was talking about the studies the Liberals have done, so they should not be afraid to get back to the table and have a lengthy debate about this and call in the experts. There are two separate issues, and there are provincial jurisdictional concerns as well. When I have conversations with members of the party opposite, they tell me that there might be some patchwork. Some provinces might buy into it and some might not, and that is a problem as well. We want to have a unified approach when it comes to these issues. The other challenge we have is that MAID cannot be a substitute for bad health care. I understand that it is a provincial responsibility, but we have to make sure that any legislation we put forward can handle the current system. Sixty-three per cent of Canadians believe we are in a state of crisis when it comes to our health care. Canada has one of the worst wait times in the world for surgeries. We do not want people to feel so pressured and burdened when looking at the state of health care that they decide to end their lives. We have heard stories of that already, and it is a huge concern for us. MAID cannot be a substitute for bad health care. I also believe that the language being used in this legislation could be tightened up. There is lots of room for amendments, but it has to go back to the drawing board. We have to have these conversations. We have to have these discussions. Again, we have offered the Liberals that solution. We have told them we will work with them. We made it very clear that this is not about party politics. Let us not make it about party politics. Let us make it about the lives of people, the innocent and vulnerable, who need that support. That will be my request going forward in this debate. Conservatives are united on this: please, split the bill. Give us the time we need to study it. If we get this wrong, lives will be lost. This is a matter of life and death. I know my colleagues across the aisle agree that we have to get this right. They have the opportunity to do what is right to get this bill done. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to protect the most vulnerable. It is our responsibility. We have to look at all options on this. If someone needs help, we should have a health care system that supports them. We should be giving them care. We should be giving them the tools they need to get their lives back. If those do not exist, people will be pushed toward something they do not want to do. We do not want to be in a situation where we are taking away lives. I always say that a person’s worth should never be measured by their illness, their disability, their age or their need for care. I generally believe in that. I believe in the sanctity of human life. I believe that when someone is struggling, we should be there for them. We should be a country that is united in providing that care. As we progress, as we have conversations and debates, my only ask, again, of the Liberal government is to split the bill. Lives are at stake. Let us slow down. Irrespective of what side someone is on, whether they support advance requests or not, there are legitimate concerns with this bill the way it is written. We need the time and the expertise from across the board to analyze this so we do not lose any lives. Every single day that I stand in this House, that I have the honour of serving our country, I will fight for that.”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “This is a matter of life and death.”

  Said 5 times by 4 members since November 4.

  Every time it was said →

“Doctors have shared real concerns with me about this bill. Conservatives already agree that people should not receive medically assisted dying just for mental illness. The real issue is that we need stronger rules to protect vulnerable people, and that is our job as lawmakers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question, but I can say that doctors have reached out who are sharing legitimate concerns about this bill. Again, we as Conservatives agree on the mental illness stuff. We have been leading the charge on that. My colleague sitting right beside me, with Bill C-218, has led the charge on that, so there is no debate regarding that. The debate is regarding the safeguards that are needed. Irrespective of what members’ beliefs are and what side they are on, it is our duty as parliamentarians to make sure that safeguards are in place to protect the most vulnerable. That is where we stand.”

“I oppose this bill. It lets people sign a paper asking to be medically killed years later, even if they are not told when it is about to happen. People could sign this out of fear right after a diagnosis. We offered to quickly pass the part stopping medically assisted dying for mental illness on its own, so that is not the real issue here.”

“Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has pointed out well, the bill is fundamentally about the idea of advance directives for MAID. We could fix the mental health issue in 48 hours. We have already proposed splitting the bill and expediting the mental health section. It could move forward very quickly, so that is not the issue in tonight’s debate. The issue is that the government is proposing a radical change to our MAID laws to allow a person today to sign a document that would allow someone to kill them at some point in the future. The law would not even require that they be told at that future point in time. Someone could be killed without even being told what is about to happen to them, simply on the basis of a document that they signed years ago before they even had any lived experience with their illness. They might receive a diagnosis, be terrified about what that means, sign a document based on what somebody tells them and then years later have someone take their life as a result of that document. This is gravely concerning, and it is something that I strongly oppose and that we should strongly oppose.”

“We should pass the ban on assisted dying for mental illness right away. But the government must slow down on letting people ask for it in advance. Doctors, provinces, and care groups have deep concerns. We need more time to study this and protect vulnerable people.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the Liberal government needs to slow down on advance requests. They have to slow down. There is deep concern among medical professionals, provincial leaders, community organizations, advocacy groups, hospices and others raising concerns. It is in the best interests of Canadians that we pass the mental illness component as soon as possible. We could pass it tomorrow. We are ready to support the Liberals’ initiatives. That would take care of the time crunch that they claim they are under. We would support that, but let us take the time to find a solution for vulnerable Canadians who may end up losing their lives without proper safeguards. Let us study this, let us spend time on it and let us get it right, because this is a matter of life and death.”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “This is a matter of life and death.”

  Said 5 times by 4 members since November 4.

  Every time it was said →

“Health care in Canada should be better. The government should stop spending money abroad and use it to fix our health care system at home instead. Right now, Canada pays more on debt interest than on health care transfers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that health care in Canada should be better than what it is right now. I believe the current government should stop its reckless spending on other pet projects outside of the country, bring that money home and invest it in health care services. For example, the debt the government has increased in this country is from interest payments. We are paying more for interest payments than we are for health care transfers. Let us bring that money back home, and let us fix our health care system.”

“I want to split this bill into two parts. I want to pass the ban on assisted dying for mental illness right now, and stop the plan to allow advance requests. People cannot predict years ahead of time if their future life with dementia will still be happy, and this bill does not have enough safety rules to protect them. Existing assisted dying rules already fail to protect people who change their minds, so we should not expand them to people who can no longer speak for themselves.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is a cruel kind of thief that enters a home without breaking a window or turning a lock. It does not steal the family’s silver or the money tucked away for a rainy day. The thief takes something far more precious. It steals memories, familiar faces and little pieces of a lifetime lovingly built together. About 10 years ago, that thief came for my auntie Grace. She arrived in Canada from Holland in her early twenties, stepping off a ship in Halifax with a whole new life ahead of her. She found work as a maid at 24 Sussex Drive for Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, where she even served tea to President Kennedy. Each morning, as she brought Mr. Diefenbaker his tea, he would hand her the newspaper and ask her to read aloud. She was in Canada now, he told her, and learning English was important, and learn she did. She married my uncle John, raised a family and together they built a successful pest control business. When they were not working, they would hitch up their little tent trailer and explore the beautiful country they had made their home. It was a good life, filled with hard work, adventure and love, but Alzheimer’s has a terrible way of unravelling even the most beautiful stories. My uncle cared for her at home until about five years ago, when her needs became more than he could manage alone. Today, at 92, he drives from Langley to Surrey every single day to sit beside his wife, make sure she is eating and see that she is being cared for. I remember him sending me a little video. There she was, happily sorting a tray of mismatched socks into pairs, only to mix them up and begin again. My uncle was so excited to show me how happy she was. These days, she does not recognize the man who has loved her for a lifetime or the children they raised together, but sometimes, when the family sings old, familiar hymns, she quietly hums along. Every once in a while, the faintest glimmer of recognition sparkles in her eyes. How precious those moments are to a husband who has devoted his life to loving his wife. Imagine another scenario. Imagine that, years ago, while my aunt was still the capable woman who had built the business, raised her children and travelled across Canada, she had written down a simple instruction, that if the day ever came when she no longer recognized her husband or children, she did not want to go on living. Perhaps she could not imagine there might still be happiness in a familiar song or contentment in sorting mismatched socks or love in the quiet presence of a husband she could no longer name. Imagine that day has come and someone must decide whether the time has come to act upon her words. There is something deeply troubling about asking someone to predict years in advance what will make their life worth living. When we are healthy and independent, we imagine all things we could not possibly bear. We tell ourselves we could never live without our memories and our independence, but something remarkable happens when people actually live through circumstances they once feared. Researchers call it the disability paradox. In a study of people with disabilities, more than half of those with moderate to serious disabilities described their quality of life as good or excellent. Lives that others might look upon with pity were lives the people living them still very much enjoyed. Researchers in the Netherlands studying advance euthanasia requests among people with Huntington’s disease also found that people making those requests recognized that their wishes might change as their illness progressed. The person writing an advance request is imagining a future they have never lived, but the person living that future may have discovered reasons to treasure it. When the decision is irreversible, that difference matters. I think about my aunt sitting contentedly with her mismatched socks and my uncle watching her, grateful for every smile. What if she had signed an advance request? Who would speak for the woman she is today? Who would notice that she was happy? Who would ask whether the suffering she once feared had actually become the suffering she was experiencing? Who would stop it if someone got that decision terribly wrong? When I turn to Bill C-41, I do not find the protections that would give me confidence that those questions have been answered. There is no requirement to tell a person their life is about to be ended or consult the family who knows them best, or have a dementia specialist examine them when that final decision is made. When the family disagrees, there is no independent court or tribunal required to review the decision before it proceeds. Then, there is the question of intolerable suffering. How can we be certain someone is suffering intolerably when they can no longer tell us what they are feeling? Researchers have spent years developing ways to recognize pain in advanced dementia, yet there is no gold standard assessment tool. A grimace might mean pain. Agitation might mean infection or an unfamiliar environment. These are things we should be trying to understand and treat, yet Bill C-41 would ask practitioners to determine not simply whether someone is suffering, but whether someone is suffering intolerably. How can we ask someone who cannot tell us what they are feeling to bear the consequences of another person’s judgment about whether their life is still worth living? I want to take us now into an Ontario care home on a summer morning this past July. An 83-year-old grandmother named Brigitte Stegemann was lying in her bed. She was someone’s mother and grandmother, and a woman whose family had loved her for a lifetime, but this was the morning she had scheduled to die. According to her granddaughter, just two days earlier, Brigitte had broken down in tears when she learned the date had been set. She said she had made a mistake, but now the day had arrived. Her granddaughter describes a nurse struggling to insert an IV, leaving blood on Brigitte’s nightgown and bedding. When the doctor arrived, Brigitte lay quietly with her eyes closed and her hands clasped tightly together, almost as though she was praying. Perhaps she was praying. Her family does not know. When the doctor asked whether they could proceed, Brigitte gave no answer. She did not open her eyes. She did not nod. She did not speak. Her granddaughter says she felt a wave of relief, believing the procedure would stop without confirmation of her grandmother’s wishes, but it did not, and within minutes, Brigitte was gone. This happened under existing MAID laws, before Parliament had even authorized this new expansion. A granddaughter is left wondering whether their grandmother’s wishes were respected and whether the safeguards meant to protect her worked at all. Now, Parliament is being asked to allow advance requests to be carried out when someone cannot consent nor confirm that they still want to die. If we cannot be certain that consent is being properly respected under today’s system, how can we be confident we will recognize a change of heart in someone who can no longer tell us what they want? The government has chosen to call Bill C-41 the medical assistance in dying safeguards act. What a remarkable name for a bill that purports to protect one group of vulnerable Canadians while opening the door to an entirely new expansion for people who can no longer consent. What troubles me most is what the government chose not to include. When I introduced Bill C-218 to protect Canadians suffering from mental illness, people asked why I had not included more mental health supports. I would have loved to, but as a private member, I was limited to what I could do in my bill. The government has no excuse. Instead of including the treatment, counselling and compassionate care vulnerable Canadians desperately need, the Liberals chose to attach an entirely different expansion of assisted dying. The only reason these two decisions are tied together is for political spite. The government could protect Canadians struggling with mental illness right now by splitting the bill and passing the mental illness exclusion today and then give Parliament the time to properly scrutinize the rest of the bill. With the looming March deadline, the Liberals have made the protection of one vulnerable group conditional on expanding assisted dying to another. As I stand here today, I keep thinking about my uncle John. Tomorrow morning, at 92 years old, he will get into his car and make that familiar drive from Langley to Surrey. He will find his wife and sit beside the woman he has loved for a lifetime. Perhaps she will recognize him. More likely, she will not. Perhaps they will sing an old hymn and she will happily sort her little pile of mismatched socks. My uncle will treasure every minute, because while Alzheimer’s has stolen so much from my aunt, it has not stolen her ability to experience happiness and it has not stolen my uncle’s love for her. Who among us has the wisdom to decide that those moments no longer matter? The thief has already taken her memories. Let us be careful that the law does not take away her tomorrows.”

“We must act before March 17 to stop medically assisted dying from expanding to mental illness. Instead of passing a simple bill to do that, the government tied it to another expansion of assisted dying. They are using the deadline to force us to pass changes we have not studied properly. The government should split the bill and protect people with mental illness right away.”

“Mr. Speaker, the political gamesmanship here is absolutely shameful. The government knows full well that Parliament has to act before March 17 to prevent MAID from expanding to mental illness alone. However, instead of introducing a straightforward bill to do exactly that, the Liberals have tied it to an entirely separate expansion of assisted dying. They are using an approaching deadline to pressure Parliament into accepting something it has not properly studied. They are holding the protection of one vulnerable group hostage against the expansion of MAID for another. If the government genuinely wants to protect Canadians struggling with mental illness, there is a very simple solution: split the bill and pass that protection immediately.”

“We must vote against this bill. It will let every province make its own rules, so people will just travel between provinces to get around them. It will create a total mess.”

“Mr. Speaker, the translation was a bit cut off, so I am not totally sure I understood his question. The challenge, as my other colleague spoke about, is we are going to have a patchwork of law. Every province can have its own bill. People will be able to travel from province to province. It is an absolute dog’s breakfast. We need to say no to this bill.”

“I oppose this bill. For ten years, even Justin Trudeau refused to allow advance requests for medically assisted death. He knew it could lead to killing people based on old documents that do not match what they want now. The current Prime Minister wants to go even further, and I want to know why.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech tonight. My friend across the way pointed out that this debate has been going on for a very long time. He said since the 1990s. I would say versions of this debate have been going on since the dawn of time, actually. It is notable that in 10 years, and through multiple phases of expansion, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau chose not to bring in advance directives. There were people in this House and elsewhere pushing for it at the time, but there were also grave concerns about how advance directives would lead to somebody in the future choosing to kill someone based on a document they signed in the past that may be ambiguous, may not be clear, or may not relate to their present lived experience or present preferences. Justin Trudeau thought that was a bridge too far. Now we have a Prime Minister who actually wants to go further in the expansion than Justin Trudeau did. Further, he is trying to deviously tie it to another issue. The core point on advance directives is this was considered for 10 years by a previous Liberal government, and Justin Trudeau was not exactly a moderate on these issues. It was too far, yet the Prime Minister has chosen to go even further. Why is that?”

“The Liberals voted down a bill to permanently stop assisted dying for people with only a mental illness. Twenty days later, they brought in their own bill with that same rule, but added a new expansion to assisted dying. A committee already told them to make this rule in June. They did not need a whole new bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the government’s record here. Bill C-218 would have permanently prevented MAID from expanding to people whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. The Liberals voted it down on October 7. Twenty days later, they introduced their own legislation containing the same protection, but attached an entirely different expansion of MAID. The parliamentary committee had already recommended the permanent exclusion in June. The Liberals cannot pretend this is some new sudden revelation that requires an entirely new legislative package. They had the evidence. They had the recommendation. They had the bill before them. We could have addressed all the issues. They chose to defeat it and now they want to dictate the terms of protecting the very people they refused to protect three weeks ago.”

“I want to split this bill in two. Mental illness and advance requests are two different issues, and both need a full debate.”

“Madam Speaker, we have heard more than once this evening and throughout the day that Conservatives would like to see the bill split in two. We believe there are two separate issues. There is the mental illness component and there is the advance request component. I am wondering what my colleague thinks about this. Would he agree that there are two separate issues and that both deserve a fulsome debate, specifically the advance requests?”

“I oppose this bill. Last year, 692 people asked for medically assisted death and then changed their minds. This bill lets someone be helped to die based on an old form, without checking if they still want it at the time.”

“Madam Speaker, in the “Sixth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada”, from Health Canada, detailed data was gathered on MAID requests and on the number of requests that were carried out. Strikingly, in one year, 692 people made and then withdrew a request for MAID. This is interesting. These are people who, because of where they were at and because of whatever aspects of their circumstances, made that request and then decided they did not want it. That is 692 people in one year. Very clearly, if we had a system of advance requests, a person could be killed later based on a document they signed before, without being asked about that contemporaneously at the time they are being killed. That is in this bill. The bill would not require that they be asked anything at the time their life is ended. Someone could carry that out based on what they said before. Where would that leave the 692 people in one year who, using their autonomy, made one decision but later, also using their autonomy, made a different decision to undo their previous decision?”

“I support banning medically assisted dying for mental illness alone, but I oppose the rest of this bill. It is meant to expand assisted dying by letting people ask for it in advance. The proposed rules will not protect vulnerable people, and doctors already face too little oversight. I want the committee to remove the parts that expand assisted dying and focus only on strict national safeguards.”

“Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake. I rise today on behalf of the caring Canadians in the compassionate riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-41, the medical assistance in dying safeguards act. I want to begin by thanking the co-chairs and the elected members of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying for their work in reviewing calls to expand medical assistance in dying to those who are not dying but instead suffering from mental illness. The committee is bipartisan. It recommended to permanently exclude mental illness as a sole condition for receiving medical assistance in dying, which is welcomed by my constituents and the vast majority of Canadians who have survived mental illness or who are currently living with severe mental illness. My Conservative colleagues on the special joint committee included a number of supplementary recommendations that I believe should be highlighted before the bill is brought to committee. The first recommendation was to call on the government to support the member for Cloverdale—Langley City’s private member’s bill to permanently exclude mental illness as a condition to access medical assistance in dying. Sadly, the government rejected the recommendation and voted down the bill. Instead, the government brought forward a bill expanding medical assistance in dying to allow advance requests, which had not been studied by the special joint committee. While the bill does include the permanent repeal of mental illness as an eligible condition by including it in the legislation to expand access to MAID and voting against a clean bill, the government has politicized this sensitive issue. This was a regrettable decision by the government, but I truly hope we can return to a more collegial approach when it goes to committee. While the government has given this bill the short title of it being the medical assistance in dying safeguards act, its purpose is not to create safeguards but to allow advance requests. In setting out the criteria for advance requests, the government reveals how difficult any safeguards for advance requests would be. The bill states: if, by virtue of subsection (6), medical assistance in dying on the basis of the advance request was previously not provided because there was doubt as to whether the person’s words, sounds or gestures constituted a demonstration of refusal or resistance, ensure that there are at least 30 clear days between the day on which the words, sounds or gestures were observed by a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner and the day on which the medical assistance in dying on the basis of that request is provided; What the bill is saying is that anyone who has given an advance request on the basis of having an illness where death is reasonably foreseeable can later refuse to go through with it. If there is any subjective doubt felt by the medical practitioner as to whether their patient has refused, the medical practitioner must wait 30 days before trying to administer a substance that would cause death. This alone calls into question any diagnosis that death was reasonably foreseeable. It creates that perverse incentive where a medical practitioner must decide if they doubt the patient’s attempt at refusal or they doubt their own medical judgment. No Canadian’s life should be lost to confirmation bias. Even the criteria for administering MAID following an advance request includes a subjective opinion by the medical practitioner that the person who has lost the capacity to consent is experiencing intolerable physical or psychological suffering. If a person has lost the capacity to consent, how can their psychological suffering be assessed? Not only are the limited measures in the bill an insufficient safeguard, the government is downloading the job onto the provinces. That the government would take this approach so soon after the Ontario government gutted its own MAID review panel is all the more troubling. The fact that Ontario’s MAID review panel is run by the coroner’s office only highlights the lack of safeguards. This is why Conservatives made a different recommendation, which states: The government should work with provinces and territories to establish minimum national standards for MAID oversight to ensure the effectiveness and enforceability of MAID safeguards. Those standards should include prospective review mechanisms capable of pausing or stopping a provision where serious compliance concerns arise before death, stronger review of prior records and assessments, clear referral pathways for potential Criminal Code violations, and greater independence of oversight bodies from MAID delivery systems. Given the irreversibility of MAID, genuine safeguards would ensure a case could be stopped before proceeding. Families should not be forced to go to court to protect their loved ones. Doctors should not be assessing patients for MAID in a Tim Hortons parking lot, then driving the patient to the clinic to be killed, as Dr. James MacLean did. Dr. MacLean only received a slap on the wrist from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for his drive-through MAID. The bill provides no safeguards for the kind of doctor shopping that saw an Ontario man denied MAID in this province seek out Ellen Wiebe in B.C., who assisted in his suicide for irritable bowel syndrome. That man’s family was not as lucky as the family of an Alberta woman who also was denied MAID in her province but was approved for MAID after a zoom call with Ellen Wiebe. That family secured a court injunction, and the woman stopped seeking MAID. Those are just two examples of cases where the current safeguards failed to stop a doctor and MAID activist like Ellen Wiebe. That a court found Dr. Wiebe to be mistaken in granting a track 2 MAID approval called into question the current lack of safeguards. That no criminal charges have followed the court findings proves the safeguards are insufficient. Does anyone believe that doctors such as Ellen Wiebe or James MacLean would have any doubts if a patient who gave an advance request unclearly indicates a refusal? Conservatives recommended a full review of the effectiveness and enforceability of current MAID safeguards to prevent vulnerable Canadians from being assisted in committing suicide, but instead of listening to our recommendations, the bill would expand MAID to advance requests. Fortunately, it is not too late. We can delete the clauses expanding MAID and turn the bill into a real set of nationally enforceable safeguards. While the government was playing politics and voting down my colleague’s clean bill earlier, we can put that aside to transform this bill from one that would expand MAID to one that would provide real safeguards. Elected parliamentarians from the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party worked together on the special joint committee to find common ground in rejecting the expansion of MAID to people solely suffering from mental illness. While we may disagree on expanding MAID to include advance requests, the majority of people on both sides of this debate are motivated by compassion, yet when it comes to mental illness, or it comes to those who are suffering but whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable, offering MAID is not compassion, but an admission of our failure to provide the compassion required to live a life of meaning and purpose. Tomorrow, the government will undoubtedly table a budget filled with more compassion for investors and corporations than for those suffering in silence, and while the government gives hundreds of millions of dollars to fake spaceports and fraudulent electric buses, Canadians linger in hospital hallways. We do not need half measures like five-year funding formulas that add marginal capacity to mental health services. We need bold moves like the Manhattan Project to fight mental illness. If we are not successful in eradicating mental illness, the effort alone could be the hope so many people need. Killing is not compassion. Fighting for everyone to enjoy a life of meaning and purpose is compassion. If we do not take this opportunity to increase the safeguards and effectively roll back track 2 for all but the most extreme cases, then all we would be doing is greasing the slippery slope. Ever since the Supreme Court overturned precedent and invented a right to death, we have witnessed exactly what so many predicted would happen. Advocates keep on pushing to expand it. First it was those without terminal illness. Then it was those with only mental illness. Now we have doctors asking for the power to decide if an infant’s life is worth living. They will not stop pushing it until they find a court to allow it. Nine unelected judges should never decide whose life has value and whose does not. It falls to Parliament to fight for life. Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

“Most people who contacted me do not want this assisted dying bill to pass. We have not talked enough about advance requests. There are not enough safeguards to protect people who do not want it, are not ready, or change their minds.”

“Madam Speaker, the overwhelming majority of people who have contacted me do not want MAID to go forward. Quite frankly, the discussion on advance requests has really not been fully discussed. In fact, it has not been discussed at all. Very few people have raised the issue of advance requests and the whole issue of safeguards has never been put into place. That is what their concern is, that the safeguards will not be there for those who are not ready, do not want it or want to change their mind, are in place.”

“People can already refuse treatments to keep them alive. Most people in my riding oppose assisted dying. They would rather spend time and money on hospices so people can die in comfort, not have their deaths sped up.”

“Madam Speaker, extreme procedures for extending life do not have to be performed if people do not want them to be performed. It is not a sin to reject special treatment to extend life. Now, in terms of the other topic, I would say the vast majority of people in my riding value life and compassion to the point of, instead of even thinking about MAID, they would rather put their money, their time and their volunteer hours into hospices to make sure that, when somebody passes, they do so in comfort rather than having the process sped up. That is because people from where I come from, including myself, believe in miracles.”

“Liberals claim that anyone who opposes this bill is putting vulnerable people at risk. But Conservatives already tried to permanently stop assisted dying for mental illness, and the Liberals voted against it. Why is the government forcing us to expand assisted dying just to protect people with mental illness, instead of dealing with these two issues separately?”

“Madam Speaker, we have heard the Liberals argue that anyone who does not support this bill is putting vulnerable Canadians at risk, but Conservatives have already put forward legislation to permanently exclude mental illness, and the Liberals voted against it. Could my colleague explain why the government is now insisting that protecting Canadians struggling with mental illness must come at the price of expanding assisted dying, when Parliament could deal with these two issues separately?”

“The Liberals are doing something diabolical. It seems like they want to use assisted dying to deal with mental illness just to save money.”

“Madam Speaker, I cannot get my head into the brain of a Liberal. It is quite diabolical what they are doing. It sounds like they would rather save money and deal with mental illness by having MAID.”

“I want to permanently ban assisted dying for people with only a mental illness, and I oppose this bill because it expands assisted dying in other ways. Mental illness can get better with treatment, and doctors cannot reliably tell if someone will recover or if they are suicidal. The government should not mix the mental illness ban with new expansions in one bill.”

“Madam Speaker, when considering legislation, we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to think carefully about the decisions we make in this place and the real-life impacts they have on Canadians. That responsibility is even greater when we are dealing with matters of life and death. Medical assistance in dying is not an ordinary policy issue. The decisions made under this legislation have final and irreversible consequences. There is no opportunity to change course or undo what has been done. I approach this legislation with a deep respect for the inherent value of human life and with the conviction that our laws must offer protection to those who are most vulnerable. That responsibility is particularly important when we consider the changes to Canada’s MAID framework before us today. One area where these concerns have been particularly evident is the question of MAID for individuals whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness. Previous Liberal legislation amended the Criminal Code to include a two-year prohibition on the availability of MAID for mental illness. The legislation included a sunset clause that would allow the exclusion to expire, opening the door to this expansion of MAID eligibility. Including a sunset clause on such a significant change was reckless. Mental health experts and advocates have continuously raised serious concerns about expanding MAID eligibility to include mental illness, and a mental illness should not be treated as irremediable. Recovery is possible even for those experiencing severe and prolonged suffering. A person’s circumstances and response to treatment can change over time. Someone experiencing severe suffering today may find relief through treatment and support tomorrow. The most important message we can send to those struggling with their mental health is that there is always hope for recovery. Offering someone MAID when they are experiencing hopelessness risks taking away the opportunity for that recovery. That is why the Special Joint Committee on MAID recommended making the exclusion for mental illness permanent in the Criminal Code. This recommendation followed testimony from medical experts, researchers, advocates and Canadians with lived experience. The chief medical officer at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health told the committee that there is currently no established criteria or consensus among psychiatrists about whether or when a mental illness should be considered irremediable. He also pointed to the difficulty of distinguishing a request for MAID from a suicidal intent, explaining that researchers found no reliable way to make that distinction. Professor Brian Mishara, an expert in suicide prevention, also spoke to the uncertainty of predicting whether someone will recover. His testimony reinforced the importance of recognizing that even when someone is experiencing severe and prolonged suffering, their circumstances and outlook can change. We cannot lose sight of that possibility when considering legislation with such irreversible consequences. Another important concern raised before the committee was the lack of access to mental health treatment and support. The chief medical officer also acknowledged there may be individuals who have not had the opportunity to access treatments that could help them. There is something deeply troubling about offering someone an irreversible end to their life when they may not have had a real opportunity to access the treatment and care they need. We cannot say someone has truly exhausted all their options when all options have not been made available to them. For someone struggling with mental illness, access to treatment should not be out of reach. They deserve the opportunity to receive care, explore treatment options and find a path forward. We cannot allow gaps in our health care system to become a reason why somebody is offered MAID. A system that offers MAID without ensuring access to appropriate care is failing the very Canadians it should be protecting. Permanently excluding MAID for people whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness is the right decision. This is a recognition of the serious concerns Conservatives have been raising all along. Expanding MAID to include mental illness would undoubtedly lead to the death of someone who still has a chance to recover. With the right treatment, care and support, their future would be very different. We should never rob someone of the opportunity to get better, or, in fact, rob their families and friends of the opportunity to see them recover. This makes the Liberal government’s handling of MAID all the more troubling. The government had an opportunity to take a clear and direct step to protect Canadians with mental illness. If the Liberals were serious about protecting those affected, they would have supported Bill C-218. That Conservative private member’s bill would have addressed the issue directly and provided an opportunity to work together on a measure that has broader support. Instead, the Liberals voted down Bill C-218 and then brought forward their own legislation. Bill C-41 would go beyond permanently excluding MAID for mental illness. It would also include further expansion to Canada’s MAID regime. These are separate issues. Each deserves its own debate and careful consideration. The recent committee study focused on MAID for mental illness. It did not examine these further expansions to the regime. This is why these issues should not have been combined in one bill. The recent committee study focused on MAID for mental illness. It did not focus on or scrutinize further expansions of the regime, but the committee did hear testimony from witnesses who raised serious concerns about vulnerabilities within the existing MAID framework. Those included gaps in access to care, social and economic pressures and questions about whether the current safeguards are working as intended. Beyond these broader concerns, there have also been several public accounts of Canadians being offered MAID when they had not asked for it. Miriam Lancaster, an 83-year-old woman in British Columbia, has spoken about being offered MAID when she went to the hospital with severe pain. She had not yet even been diagnosed. Ultimately, doctors later found a fracture and she went on to recover. The death of Brigitte Stegemann, an 83-year-old grandmother who died by MAID in July, is now under investigation. Her family says she had made it clear that she did not want MAID and that she did not give final consent before the procedure. These are just a few recent cases that have received media attention, and they raise serious concerns about consent, pressure and the protection of vulnerable people. These cases have occurred under the current MAID framework. These concerns become even more serious when we consider the Liberal government’s proposal to expand MAID. If we are still struggling to ensure consent and to protect vulnerable people under the current framework, there are serious questions about whether the proposed safeguards will be enough. This is particularly concerning when someone can no longer speak for themselves. Bill C-41 raises serious questions about the direction of Canada’s MAID framework and the protections in place for vulnerable Canadians. The exclusion for MAID where mental illness is the sole underlying condition must be made permanent. Expanding eligibility to those with mental illness should never have been a consideration to begin with. The Liberals had an opportunity to work with Conservatives on targeted legislation to permanently address this issue. Instead, they put forward this bill that combines this important measure with further expansions to the MAID framework. These are separate issues, and they should have been dealt with separately. It is reckless to further expand MAID when serious issues remain around consent, pressure and coercion under the current system. We have a responsibility to ensure that the law protects those who are most vulnerable. When it comes to the decision about someone’s life, getting it wrong even once is one time too many.”