“I support this bill because it lets people make advance requests for medical assistance in dying. More people are living longer and will suffer from dementia. It is respectful to let them decide ahead of time how much suffering they are willing to endure.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi, who takes a great interest in this issue. I would say that we are taking a very important step forward with Bill C‑41, particularly in authorizing advance requests. We know that demographic realities compel us to act. More and more people are living longer and, unfortunately, will be incapacitated and experience dementia. It is a matter of respect, I believe, to think about these people today, to plan ahead and to give them the opportunity to decide in advance the level of suffering they are willing to endure before receiving MAID.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I want us to pass this bill now. It leaves out some issues, like allowing medically assisted dying for mental illness alone. We can look at those issues in a future bill once more Canadians are ready for them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that all parliamentarians support this bill in some way. As I said, Bill C-41 does close the door on some things, but we can always revisit those issues later in another bill. I think that we are better off waiting until we have more support from society at large rather than trying to force a bill down Canadians’ throats when they still have so many concerns. I think that we will have to take that step one day. I hope it will be sooner rather than later. That is my humble opinion.”

“I want the House to pass this bill and send it to committee. It lets people diagnosed with diseases like dementia ask for medically assisted dying in advance, before they lose the ability to consent. Most Canadians support this change. It gives people control over their end-of-life care while letting provinces set the rules for how it is safely handled.”

“Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to thank my colleague from La Prairie—Atateken for his excellent speech and his commitment to this issue. Since arriving here, he has immersed himself in the issue of medical assistance in dying. Today, we are seeing positive results. Parliament established the Canadian framework for medical assistance in dying in 2016. I was here at the time. Since then, Canadians have been engaged in an ongoing, compassionate dialogue on this issue. It is something I have discussed around the kitchen table with my family. Since 2016, it has been a topic that comes up regularly. While this issue can divide families around the dinner table, it can also divide members of this House. It is not an easy issue. Nevertheless, it is one that deserves serious consideration. I am proud to support my government’s approach. Today, I will focus primarily on how we can recognize and place appropriate limits on certain actions related to decisions about medical assistance in dying. I recall that we recognized at the time that there were some very complex issues that would need to be examined further. That is exactly what Parliament did. One of those sensitive issues was the possibility of allowing MAID based on an advance request. The court ruling has brought the issue of MAID before us once again. As my colleague made clear at the end of his last response, there is more work to be done. We can start drafting the legislation and refine it over time. There is no unanimous consensus on mental illness at the moment. It is important to note that advance requests for MAID are not currently permitted under the Criminal Code, because a person must be capable of providing consent immediately prior to the administration of MAID. Quebec has served as a model for us. Contrary to what the Bloc Québécois sometimes says, specifically that we are using this bill as a bulldozer, we are actually working together to move the bill forward. The Bloc Québécois should be proud to tell us that Quebec is a model. It is a model for us, a model for Canada, a model for drafting Canada’s medical assistance in dying legislation. We recognize that people with dementia can live for many years with this disease and that, depending on how the disease progresses, they can continue to enjoy a good quality of life and participate in meaningful activities. For some people, it is especially important to maintain their autonomy when it comes to decisions about their future health care. The decision is made now. When someone is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s or dementia, they are fully aware of the decisions they are making. Today, thanks to technology, the disease can be detected more quickly. Patients can find out what lies ahead. They can understand how their condition will deteriorate and how fast it will happen. People are thinking about the care they wish to receive at the end of their lives. Decisions about the future are made now. This may include the option to choose medical assistance in dying, even in circumstances where the person would have lost the capacity to consent by the time they become eligible to receive MAID. That is the major change introduced by the bill. I believe that Bill C-41 will allow people diagnosed with a condition that will result in a loss of capacity to submit an advance request for MAID. The eligibility criteria and safeguards must be established in the Criminal Code. This has to be clear at the national level. As my colleague so aptly put it, this is an incredibly important step to take before referring the bill to committee. A great deal will happen in committee. Thousands of witnesses have given evidence since 2016, when the entire legislative framework was overhauled, and now the committee will hear more. It is important to recognize that the provinces and territories are responsible for delivering health care services. The bill will also require provinces and territories that choose to allow advance requests to enact legislation setting out how this would work in practice. My colleague was clear on this point. In his response to the Bloc Québécois, he made it clear that governments will have to adapt to the bill. We are establishing a national framework. Nothing in this world is perfect, but this bill provides an excellent foundation for adapting MAID legislation across the provinces and territories. This approach reflects the division of responsibilities and respect for jurisdictional boundaries. Responsibility is shared across Canada. The federal government establishes the criminal law framework, while the provinces and territories are responsible for the delivery of health care. In the case of requests for MAID, the federal legal framework proposes to create eligibility criteria and safeguards that practitioners must adhere to. The provincial and territorial laws would specify how MAID based on an advance request could be safely administered, by establishing the terms governing how requests are stored and accessed by health care professionals. In addition, these laws would have to establish specific rules governing the submission, modification and possible withdrawal of advance requests by individuals who change their mind. That aspect has been made clear; it was mentioned by the minister in his opening speech. I think he placed a lot of emphasis on the fact that people have the right to reconsider at any time. This approach is rooted in years of parliamentary studies and public dialogue on this issue. We have been talking about MAID for several years now. In its 2023 report, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying recommended that the Government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to allow for advance requests for MAID following a diagnosis of a serious and incurable medical condition leading to incapacity. Then came all the definitions, the testimony, the public consultations and the digital consultations. Thousands of consultations were held. From November 2024 to February 2025, the government launched a national conversation on advance requests, during which thousands of people from across the country made their voices heard through an online public survey, public opinion polls and virtual round table discussions. Nearly 46,000 Canadians completed the online survey, and 69% said they supported advance requests for people diagnosed with a serious and incurable condition resulting in a loss of decision-making capacity. More recent surveys show even greater support for advance requests. For example, a 2025 survey found that 84% of Canadians support the right of people in this situation to make an advance request. During the national conversation, participants pointed out the importance of being able to make decisions about their future health needs and maintaining control over their final moments. At the round tables, we heard testimony from people who had gone through such experiences and from family caregivers. They described the difficult choices that sometimes have to be made when a person might lose the ability to consent to MAID as their illness progresses. For those with conditions like dementia, this can create an impossible choice: receive MAID sooner than they would like, while they are still able to provide consent, or wait and risk losing that option. Although participants expressed strong support for advance requests in principle, they also emphasized the need to ensure that this is implemented safely. Health care professionals pointed out the challenges associated with assessing suffering when a person has lost their decision-making capacity. They also explained how difficult it is to determine eligibility for MAID when the conditions described in the advance request do not exactly match the person’s current situation. In closing, this is an extremely sensitive issue, and I am sure that the committee will do its job and come back to the House with a sound decision.”

“Quebec has set a good example on advance requests for medically assisted dying. I want the House to pass this bill with a strong majority. It sets a national framework that provinces and territories can adapt for themselves.”

“Mr. Speaker, Quebec has been a model, an example to follow, when it comes to advance requests for MAID. Evidently, the framework we have presented, which I hope will be passed by a strong majority in the House, is a national, general framework. The provinces and territories will need to adapt it as they see fit. We commend Quebec on the work it has done so far, and we are ready to work together to lay a solid foundation with all the provinces and territories.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The Bloc Québécois is contradicting itself. They say we are moving too fast, but they also say we are not moving fast enough for Quebec. We want to work with Quebec to get this bill right, so the 3,000 pending requests are respected.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc Québécois is talking out of both sides of his mouth. What we have heard in the Bloc Québécois’s speeches is that we want to move too fast, that we want to bulldoze our way through this. In reality, we want to get this right, but the Bloc members are also telling us that we are not moving fast enough to pass bills that uphold Quebec’s rights. They are contradicting themselves. We are advocating for collaboration. That means working with the Province of Quebec to ensure that the 3,000 pending requests are respected.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 37 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 0 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“Our government is proud of Quebec and has 44 members from there. I want to know how our bill will reassure families who have to say their loved one can no longer make decisions for themselves.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the Bloc Québécois member. We on the government side are very proud of Quebec, and we are especially proud because we have 44 members from Quebec. I would like to ask my colleague a question. How will our bill provide certainty and reassurance to the loved ones of people with these illnesses, the very individuals who will have to stand up and declare that their loved one is no longer able to make decisions for themselves?”

“I want to know what the member thinks about including hospice and palliative care in our debate on this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the debate that will take place on this legislation and how part of that debate should include things such as hospice and palliative care. I would ask for his thoughts on those important issues.”

“In our 46,000 public meetings, people talked about mental health care over and over. The health minister told us people want better mental health services, and that should be part of this debate on medically assisted dying.”

“Mr. Speaker, over the course of the 46,000 consultations, including public consultations and round tables, other health-related topics came up over and over, including mental illness and mental health care. The health minister clearly told us that one of the things people are calling for is to expand mental health services in order to meet all of society’s needs, which includes medical assistance in dying.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Debates about medical assistance in dying need to include how families and health workers support people at the end of life. We need to do more to support hospice and palliative care. I want to know what the member thinks about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I reflect on the many debates that have taken place in the House of Commons in regard to medical assistance in dying, one thing that really needs to be talked about as part of this discussion is how health care professionals, family members and the facilities out there all come together to support a loved one. I think of things like hospice care. I believe we need to do more on hospice care. I think we can do better in terms of palliative care in different facilities. I am wondering if the member had the opportunity to reflect on those types of issues, because they all feed together with medical assistance in dying.”