Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act

Bill C-41, Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act · Second reading · now at second reading in the House Where it stands

What Bill C-41 would do

The bill would permit doctors and nurse practitioners to provide medical assistance in dying to people who have lost the capacity to consent, if they made an advance request while still able to do so. To qualify, the person must have been diagnosed with a serious and incurable condition expected to cause that loss of capacity, and their province must have a system to store and track those requests. The bill would also permanently exclude people from receiving assisted dying solely on the basis of a mental illness.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

84 statements

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“I oppose this bill. It is dangerous to let someone else decide when another person's suffering is too great to bear, based on a request written years earlier. Only the person themselves can say how much they are suffering, and they should have to consent at the time.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, what would be set up in this legislation is ridiculous and unreal. It says, on the one hand, that we must allow a person to live as long as they want, up to the point of intolerable suffering. At the same time, it is saying that somebody else, external to them, would decide, based on an advance directive written years before the suffering has even been experienced, comparing that document to what they perceive the person’s experiences are. The idea that somebody else is going to decide what is intolerable suffering for a person who does not have capacity to consent, and is not even being asked to consent, is ludicrous. It is nonsensical. The only basis on which the framework could plausibly work is with contemporaneous consent, where the person attests to their own suffering. How can a third party attest to the level of suffering a person is experiencing? Again, it is dangerous and nonsensical to have somebody else make decisions for them.

John Barlow, Foothills

Conservative
“I do not trust the government's claim that this bill adds safeguards to medically assisted dying. They have ignored the safeguards in past laws and kept expanding who can get it. I want to know if my colleague shares these concerns.”
Official Hansard

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.

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“The safeguards for assisted dying do not work. People can just keep asking doctors until they find two who agree, even if 28 others said no. This will cause huge family fights over advance requests.”
Official Hansard

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.

John Barlow, Foothills

Conservative
“I want the government to split this bill into two parts. We should quickly pass the part that stops medically assisted dying for mental illness. The rules for medically assisted dying have already failed, and caseworkers have even offered it to veterans looking for mental health help. The other part of the bill allows people to ask for medically assisted dying in advance, and that needs much more study before we vote on it.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat displeased to have to rise to speak to Bill C-41, as I have risen in the House on a number of occasions since 2017, when the Liberals brought forward the initial MAID bill. I want to go back to that initial MAID bill to show why I am raising some concerns with where we are today. I held a number of town halls throughout my riding of Foothills when the initial MAID legislation was brought forward. In fact, I brought some of my colleagues who were participants in the MAID committee established by the government to study the initial MAID legislation, because I wanted some experts at the town halls in my riding to discuss the possible implications of this legislation and what it actually meant. I will say that of all the town halls I have held in my riding over my 11-plus years as a member of Parliament, there was never the kind of attendance and engagement from my constituents as there was on the medical assistance and dying proposal. Hundreds of people attended every town hall of the several I held throughout my riding, and I have to admit that it was very split. Constituents were on both sides of this issue. Many were unclear on what it would mean. When the time came to stand up in the House and vote on that legislation, I voted against it. The main reason I voted against it is that there was no assurance or confidence from what I heard from the various speeches in the House. I even sat in on the MAID committee on a number of occasions just to learn more about what the implications of this legislation would be. In listening to those experts, to the testimony at the MAID committee and certainly to my constituents, I can say that two things really stood out for me. As I said, there was no confidence that the safeguards being proposed in that legislation would be adhered to. As my colleague before me mentioned, someone would have had to have two doctors sign off before MAID was implemented and anyone requesting MAID would have had to have a mental health assessment. MAID was only supposed to be available for those with a terminal, incurable disease with a foreseeable end. We have certainly seen over the years that that has not been the case. MAID has grown and expanded well beyond that despite the safeguards that were allegedly in place. The second thing that stood out for me, especially after participating in the MAID committee several years ago, was the real push, especially from members of the Senate at that time, to expand MAID well beyond those with just a terminal illness. There were discussions about having it for people with mental illness, people with disabilities and even minors at that time. I have to admit that I was stunned by how far some members of that committee wanted to push this legislation. As a decision of conscience, I voted against MAID at the time. I feel that my vote has been justified with how far MAID has expanded in Canada. We are now seeing exponential growth. In fact, we are leading the world on the issue, which I do not think is something we should be proud of. We have seen what I was concerned about, what I was worried about: MAID being expanded to those with mental health issues and those with disabilities. One story really stands out, which I want to raise in my speech tonight. I remember a call I received from a constituent who was an army veteran, a peacekeeper, with the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry in Calgary and who lived in Okotoks. He called me to say that he was a counsellor for other veterans with PTSD. He certainly suffered from PTSD. Mark Meincke was his name. He said he needed to let me know that he was getting calls from veterans who, when they were making calls to Veterans Affairs Canada and talking to their caseworkers, were being offered MAID. I found this claim to be quite astonishing. A veteran, someone who has put their life on the line for the service of our country, when they were reaching out to their caseworker at Veterans Affairs Canada, asking for access to mental health services, to counselling or even to check the status of their disability claim, was being offered MAID instead of being offered mental health services. In fact, we found these claims to be quite true. He brought us recordings of phone calls with Veterans Affairs and a number of cases of calls he had had with other veterans, and it was astonishing. In fact, we asked Mr. Meincke to come to the veterans affairs committee to lay out his story, and the testimony that he gave at that committee was astonishing. I want to give a couple of quotes that Mr. Meincke raised at that time. As I said, he served in Croatia. He witnessed some of the most devastating horrors that one would ever want to see. He said he was devastated by the phone call from Veterans Affairs, saying, “It’s called ‘sanctuary trauma’, where the place you go for help steps on your neck. That’s what happened here.” He said the comment from the case worker at Veterans Affairs was that, if they have any suicidal thoughts down the road, MAID was an option, that “it’s better than blowing your brains out against the wall.” These were the pieces of advice that our veterans were getting from Veterans Affairs. Our fear right from the beginning was that MAID would be expanded far beyond what it is or what it was intended to be. This is our concern. The Liberals are talking out of both sides of their mouth on this piece of legislation. On one hand, they are saying that they are going to delay the decision to offer MAID to people with mental illness as the sole underlying factor, which we completely support. However, at the same time, they are offering advance directives, which requires much further study because the history of the Liberals getting this right is one of failure. Conservatives are united on splitting this bill. We would fast-track the portion about mental health as quickly as possible to ensure those with mental health concerns are protected, but the underlying factor of advance directives deserves much further scrutiny and debate. Canadians deserve this. I do not want the Liberals to play politics on this. This is a matter of life and death, which has clearly been shown with our veterans, and that is not right. Let the Liberals do the right thing and split the bill so Canadians can have their say.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 162

  1. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  2. Oral Questions Taxation 4 statements
  3. Oral Questions Publics Services and Procurement 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions Finance 11 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions Finance 6 statements
  7. Oral Questions International Trade 6 statements
  8. Oral Questions Major Projects Office 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Emergency Management 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Artificial Intelligence 6 statements
  11. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions National Defence 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Housing 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Major Projects Office 14 statements
  17. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  19. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 4 statements
  20. Private Members' Business Wartime Service Recognition Act 12 statements
  21. Government Orders Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 31 statements
  22. Government Orders Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act 177 statements
  23. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements