“We should call this euthanasia, not MAID. The government uses that short name to make ending people's lives sound harmless, but it is not.”

“Mr. Speaker, I agree that using language is important, which is why I call it euthanasia. MAID is an acronym and a term made to sanitize something that is morally very consequential. I think it was used by the government to take something that is very disturbing to many Canadians and make it sound innocuous. It is not innocuous. It is euthanasia. It is about people’s lives being ended. This is serious. We do not need government acronyms in order to talk about this.”

“I oppose this bill. I agree that we must permanently ban assisted dying for people whose only condition is mental illness. People with depression need care and hope, not help dying. But the government is tying that ban to a new rule that lets people request assisted dying in advance. Assisted dying has already grown far too fast in Canada. The government is rushing this bill to avoid hard questions about letting people make requests in advance. We should vote on these two issues separately.”

“Mr. Speaker, there are few debates in Parliament that are more consequential and more deeply impactful than when we are called to debate life-and-death legislation. Issues of this importance require us to look beyond being partisan, and this is not the first time the chamber has had to grapple with such profound moral weight. We just have to look at our history. I am thinking of capital punishment. A private member’s bill was introduced to abolish it in 1914. For decades, in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, parliamentarians in this chamber grappled with that issue. They debated whether deterrence prevented murders, the morality of a state taking a human life, whether life imprisonment was a sufficient punishment and the irreversible possibility of making a mistake. We fast-forward to today. Medical assistance in dying is, without question, one of the most consequential public policy decisions this Parliament has ever made. It is a matter of life and death, literally, and that is precisely why we cannot afford to get this wrong. When Canada first introduced medical assistance in dying in 2016, Canadians were assured by the government that it would be a carefully controlled, exceptional measure built on very clear limitations and uncompromising safeguards. We were told it was strictly an end-of-life compassionate option for those facing a reasonably foreseeable natural death. That is what we were told, but look at where we are today. The data tells us a staggering story. In 2024 alone, 16,499 Canadians received MAID. Since its introduction, more than 76,000 Canadians have died through this program. It is approaching 100,000 now, in 2026. In 2024, MAID accounted for approximately 5.1% of all deaths across Canada. This is an extraordinary number. To put this in perspective, let us look across the border at California. It is a jurisdiction with about the same population size as Canada. Medical assistance in dying was legalized in both Canada and California at exactly the same time, yet we can look at the comparison of numbers: in Canada, 76,475 deaths, versus just 5,423 in California. In 2024, as I mentioned, there were 16,499 in this country versus 1,032 in California. I think about how dramatically our legislation has evolved. In 2021, through Bill C-7, the government expanded eligibility far beyond those whose natural deaths were reasonably foreseeable. We created two distinct tracks, including a track for individuals who are not approaching the end of life. In so doing, Canada became one of the most permissive jurisdictions in the entire world when it came to assisted dying. By removing the requirement of natural death to be reasonably foreseeable, the government extended MAID to people with disabilities and chronic illnesses who were not otherwise dying. This approach is far outside the traditional, globally recognized end-of-life care model. Mental illness was initially excluded from this expansion, but only temporarily. Ever since, Parliament has repeatedly had to step in to extend that exclusion as a matter of crisis management. Bill C-39 kicked the deadline down the road. Bill C-62 extended it again, to March 17, 2027, a date that we are now quickly approaching. We must ask ourselves why MAID for mental illness was delayed in the first place. It was delayed because committees heard testimony after testimony from the front lines stating that this was an incredibly dangerous direction to go in. There was substantial, overwhelming agreement among mental health advocates, disability advocates, psychiatric professionals and academic experts. The special joint committee’s recommendation was clear, to permanently exclude mental illness as a sole underlying condition for MAID, and Conservatives agree entirely with this. We believe that someone suffering from depression, PTSD or another severe mental illness should be met with access to treatment, support and hope, not a path to assisted death. Mental illness can be utterly devastating. It distorts how a person sees themselves, how they view their current circumstances and how they perceive the future. However, we know that circumstances can change. Treatment can work. People can recover. People who once saw absolutely no hope can go on to live incredibly meaningful, beautiful lives. I have shared this before, but it bears repeating. In my early twenties, I went through a clinical depression. It was a very dark period of time in my life. I had suicidal thoughts. Thankfully, I never made any attempts, but in that darkness I received vital support from health care professionals and those closest to me. I came out of it. Today, that dark period is a very distant memory. I feel no pain from it, but at the time I felt utterly incapacitated. With time and support, I recovered. I went on to go to university, become a teacher, an MLA in British Columbia, a member of Parliament, a father and a grandfather. I have lived a full and rich life and I am thankful. If MAID for mental illness had been legal and readily marketed for people like me at that time, how many would have gone that route? The government itself has recognized these serious concerns, which is why it repeatedly extended the exclusion. However, with the current exclusion set to expire on March 17, 2027, there is an urgent need to act, and Conservatives have acted. The member for Cloverdale—Langley City introduced a private member’s bill, Bill C-218, which would have permanently and cleanly excluded mental illness as a sole underlying condition for MAID. What happened? The Liberals voted against it. On October 7, this House had a clear opportunity to advance that protective legislation and the government voted it down. Now, just weeks later, the government has introduced its own legislation, Bill C-41, which we are debating right now as we approach midnight. What has it done? It has taken the exact permanent exclusion for mental illness and attached it to a completely separate, massive and entirely undebated element, the advance request for MAID. Let us call it what it is. The Liberals do not want to subject their new expansion of MAID to the raw public scrutiny that the mental illness expansion faced. The more the expert witnesses, physicians, psychiatrists and professional organizations spoke out about mental illness, the more the general public became concerned. They do not want to go in that direction. By chaining these two issues together in Bill C-41, it is trying to sneak a massive new policy under the radar. I say, shame. The political dynamic in this House has shifted. Following the by-elections and floor crossings earlier this year, the Liberal government now holds a majority. It no longer needs collaboration with the opposition. It no longer needs to seek multipartisan consensus on matters of life and death. Because of this, it has the raw numbers to pass legislation independently, and it is using that power to ram this through. It is rushing this bill through the House, cutting off the thorough, isolated scrutiny that each one of these profound issues desperately deserves. Conservatives are deeply concerned with the safeguards in this bill, particularly with the sudden expansion to advance directives. The cold, hard fact is that there is already widespread abuse and inappropriate promotion with our current MAID regime. Time and again, I talk with residents in my community who tell me horror stories about family members having MAID actively promoted and suggested to their loved ones. One of my own staff members was offered MAID three separate times because of the migraines he suffered from a fall a decade ago. Another man told me how his father was offered MAID because of a hip injury. The son had to step in and tell providers that his father needed exercises and stretching, not MAID. He helped his father get the proper rehabilitation and guess what. He is out of the hospital. He is not dead.”

• 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 →

“I am against this bill. People are already being pushed toward medically assisted dying. There are too many problems we still need to talk about before adding more to the system.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the abuse we are currently seeing in the system, with people being encouraged to pursue medical assistance in dying. Now there is an effort to introduce yet another element. There are a great many concerns that still need to be discussed.”

“The member is talking about the law we already have. This debate is about whether people should be allowed to get medical assistance in dying only because of a mental illness. Most of this House agrees they should not. The debate is really about end-of-life choices for people with diseases like Alzheimer's.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about what is already the law. What we are discussing now is whether MAID should be available to people whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness, and there is broad agreement in this House that it should not be. However, the debate primarily focuses on end-of-life decisions for persons with Alzheimer’s disease, for example, or other similar health problems.”

“We need more debate on this bill about medically assisted dying. This is about life and death, and we should not rush it. The Liberals made mistakes and delayed this before, and they will get it wrong again if we rush.”

“Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that there needs to be a debate about this. This is not something we should be rushing through. We are talking about life and death. The Liberals made a lot of mistakes. As a matter of fact, that is the reason they delayed it once, twice and I believe three times. Now they realize that they got it wrong. They got it wrong before, and they are going to get it wrong again. This is serious. It is very complex. There are a lot of different pieces that we need to look at, not have rushed debates in the middle of the night that have to be done by a certain period. This is not good for Canada. No matter what the member may think, we need to make sure it works.”

“I do not want this bill to pass as it is. We should split it into two parts so we can study mental illness and advance requests separately. People with mental illness need care and hope to live, not help dying. We need stronger rules to protect vulnerable people.”

“Mr. Speaker, it has been said before, and I said it in the original debate in 2016, that nothing in our lifetime prepares a member of Parliament to vote on such a consequential piece of legislation. There really is not. It truly is life or death. This legislation, as it stands today, raises serious questions about how Canada approaches medical assistance in dying, how we protect vulnerable people and what responsibilities the government has to Canadians who are suffering. From the moment I landed as a member of Parliament, I have fought every day for those who serve our country and our community and for those who are struggling and suffering silently. For over 1,000 days, I pushed the previous government to launch a national suicide hotline, 988. I believe life is so precious that we should be doing everything to fight for every breath we have in us. Since 2016, when I really struggled with that vote, I have contacted my pastor a number of times. It went against everything in my faith, in my fibre, everything that I had fought for in the 30 years leading up to my being elected as a member of Parliament. How could I vote with that? Since 2016, I have spoken with probably hundreds if not thousands of Canadians who had loved ones who suffered from cancer or ALS and chose MAID. In December 2023, my mother, from whom I was estranged, was diagnosed with acute leukemia. It was going to attack her brain. It was a painful disease. She chose MAID, and she set a death date. Whatever background we had, I put it aside and sat by her bedside for probably about four months as we marched toward that death date. I was tasked with making her a mixtape, as a matter of fact, to play on that day. Imagine my surprise and my brother’s surprise, as we had mentally prepared for that day, regardless of what our background was with our mother, when we arrived to be told by the doctors that when they were preparing her, she said no. We were frustrated because we knew what was lying ahead for my mom, but that was her choice. We met with the doctors, the medical team, the MAID team, and they said they could not in good conscience administer the final dose of the medication to end her life. That is my story, so I understand where families are. I am troubled by the number of Canadians, such as veterans, who are being offered MAID because they are struggling with PTSD or a mental illness. One in 10 Canadians knows someone who has been offered MAID. Approximately 13 Canadians die by suicide every day. Approximately 100,000 Canadians attempt suicide every year. That is 250 per day. About 20,0000 Canadians are hospitalized every year for self-harm. The MAID numbers are staggering. We are approaching 100,000 Canadians who have chosen to die by MAID. We are seeing commercials for end of life on TV and on social media. I sat with a veteran who was offered MAID. He phoned Veterans Affairs and was offered MAID. Not once, not twice, but three times he was asked if he had considered MAID. I have sat with people who have gone to their doctor for injuries that were causing them unbelievable pain. Our concern is with advance directives, and experts in the medical community have these same concerns. We are asking to split the bill to deal with mental illness and the advance directive separately to give us time to get this as close to right as possible, to put those further safeguards in place. I come at this with the purest of intentions. There was a time when I was consumed with death. It was for about five years. My best friend had died by suicide, and I did not see a way forward. My childhood had been filled with dysfunction and abuse. I was struggling, and I attempted suicide numerous times. I have thought about this, and if MAID had been available at that time, I would have taken it. Then I think about all the things I would have missed. Here I am so many years later, 38 years later, and I love life. I am so thankful I am here. I think of watching my four beautiful children grow up to be amazing adults; of my grandchildren, Ren and Meyer; and of finding the love of my life just at the end of that period of darkness. As Conservatives, we believe that we have to do everything in our power to offer opportunities for getting better, getting the supports people need. We believe in hope. We are in a mental health crisis and an addiction crisis in this country, yet time and again we hear empty promises from the other side. Tomorrow is budget day, and I hope there will be supports in place for mental health. We now spend more money in servicing our debt than we do in health care transfers. The health care transfers that go to our provinces for mental health are pennies on the dollar. We do not view mental health in parity with physical health. If we did that, as a country, we would be healthier and happier, and we would see the numbers go further down. This debate requires Parliament to think carefully about what kind of country we want to be. We must approach suffering people with compassion, respect and dignity, but compassion cannot simply mean offering another option at the end of someone’s suffering. It must mean doing everything we reasonably can to help that person live, to provide treatment, to offer support and to ensure that they are not left alone. On the question of MAID for mental illness, we are clear that we do not support it. I do not support it. We do not believe it should ever be permitted where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition. Mental illness should be met with treatment, care and hope. Canadians deserve a health care system that gives them a genuine opportunity to recover and a government that works to make care accessible. I truly understand that there are Canadians who are suffering with unbelievable illnesses for whom MAID is perhaps the right choice for them, but as parliamentarians, we must do everything in our power to make sure those safeguards are in place as we move this legislation forward.”

“The member said I dumbed down this debate. That statement was stupid, and I will not answer it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not going to really dignify that with an answer. The member essentially said I have dumbed down this debate. I am going to keep my words parliamentary and not dignify that stupid statement with an answer. An hon. member: Oh, oh!”

“If medically assisted dying is made available to people with mental illness, we must make sure all safeguards are in place. In the past, I likely would have done whatever I could to access it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate our hon. colleague. I have a great deal of respect for our colleague all the way down at the far end there. My comment is only that if this was available to those who are struggling with mental illness, again, we would have to make sure that all those safeguards were in place. I would have likely done whatever I could to access this at that time.”