Debates of Oct. 30th, 2026

Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution. I want to reassure him that we in the Bloc Québécois are absolutely proud of Quebec. Our problem is that we sometimes find that Canada is slowing down our progress, and that is the case with advance requests for medical assistance in dying. Quebec adopted legislation on this in 2023, but now we have to wait for a bill to amend the Criminal Code before we can move forward. We are indeed proud, but we would just like the federal government to stop holding us back.

Can my colleague elaborate on the common core, the national framework, in the context of advance requests in Bill C-41? We want to ensure that there is no encroachment and that Quebec is allowed to govern itself as it sees fit within its areas of jurisdiction.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC]

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.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

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?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. That is precisely what Bill C-41 aims to do: protect vulnerable individuals and uphold their right to make decisions while they are still capable of doing so, even if they may later be affected by Alzheimer's disease or dementia. It also helps to raise awareness among family members and physicians. They must be prepared to make the decision when the time comes to provide MAID. That is precisely what Bill C-41 sets out today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines, QC]

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.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this afternoon.

Bill C-41 is a profound and deeply personal issue, I think, to everyone who will consider it, and everyone who has intervened on it today approaches it from different life experiences, different backgrounds and different beliefs.

Today, I am approaching this from my perspective as a Roman Catholic. I am guided by my faith and my belief in the inherent dignity and value of human life from conception to natural death. The dignity that every person has is not diminished by suffering or by illness. Their dignity is not diminished by disability or by their dependence on others. It is through that understanding of dignity that I approach this, and my concern for the compassion and care of others.

I recognize that the serious suffering, which is probably unimaginable to any of us, that leads some people to consider MAID is at the heart of why this issue was ever brought to the attention of legislators. Those who support MAID may do so out of compassion and respect for the individual autonomy of those who are suffering. Certainly, suffering is not something we should seek, celebrate or ignore. I think we have a responsibility to relieve suffering where we can, but suffering, again, does not diminish the dignity of a person who is experiencing it, and it does not make their life any less valuable.

In this legislation, the provision of MAID for mental illness as the sole underlying medical condition has been excluded. With the difficulty in determining the irremediability of a psychological condition, that is a positive change. I am certainly supportive of that exclusion being included in this legislation. We need to make sure that there is access to treatment for people who are suffering with mental illness. We also need to make sure they have timely access to treatment.

In recent years, we have heard about veterans who have approached Veterans Affairs Canada for care in response to injuries and illnesses related to their service to Canada. It is so difficult to imagine that the testimony concerning this that Canadians heard at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs described things that could have happened here. Veterans, in multiple cases, who were seeking that care were offered MAID instead of receiving treatment, a benefit they are entitled to by virtue of their service to Canada, which they offered with unlimited liability. That is a specific phrase, the “unlimited liability” that our veterans serve our country with. It means they can be put in harm's way, leading to their death, in service to Canada.

When they leave the service, what is our liability to them? Certainly, we owe them the care for conditions arising from their service. Has Canada done a great job in taking care of our veterans? No, it has not. Is that problem unique to any period of time? No, it is not, but it is incumbent on us now to do better, to get it right and to take care of our veterans, who served us with unlimited liability.

The testimony we heard at committee was, of course, that some of these veterans were offered MAID, not care, but death. That is hard to imagine. We will hear in some of the speeches from some of my colleagues that there are not sufficient safeguards for Canadians, for people who are suffering, for people who are considering their condition in the future and considering an advance directive. There are not sufficient safeguards. What I want to raise for the government's and the minister's consideration is what protections there are for veterans approaching the government for care for those service-related injuries and illnesses. They should never be encouraged to end their lives.

There is, I think, a departmental directive that veterans affairs employees are supposed to no longer offer medical assistance in dying to our veterans. I think that for an issue as grave as this, the opportunity that is afforded to us in crafting the legislation, because we have to get it right, is to make sure there is independent and sufficient oversight but also legal protections, which would bring legal consequences for anyone who was to offer MAID to a veteran seeking care for an illness or injury arising from their service. That is not the role of Veterans Affairs Canada.

This is not an easy conversation for any of us to have. I think we all know someone who has spent their final days, weeks, months or, in some cases, years not just in a diminished capacity but suffering. It is a hard conversation to have. It is one that we are having, and I appreciate the need to be respectful of one another in engaging in this, because we are all coming at it from different perspectives.

In finding the balance, should this law come to pass, to make sure there are sufficient safeguards for everyone, I have highlighted, in particular, some of the safeguards that could be considered for veterans. I encourage the promotion of the dignity of all people. I think something we can agree on, in a conversation where there will be disagreement, is that we need to look out for each other, especially the most vulnerable among us. It is with that view that I have offered this intervention, and I will take questions on that. Hopefully, we can get this right if and when it moves to committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have among us in our hospices and among those who provide palliative care some of the most compassionate and most important people. I aspire to have the strength to care for people when they are at their worst in the way that these people do. We need to do more to make sure that we have the resources to provide dignified and sufficient care for people, and I think hospice and palliative care are two places to do that.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution to this debate.

At the beginning of his speech, he said that a person's dignity is not diminished by their suffering or by their dependence on others. Should that not be a personal choice? Should we not trust each individual to decide where to draw the line in terms of when their dignity is at risk?

My colleague's personal position is entirely valid. However, there are those who think differently and who want to be able to use medical assistance in dying to end their lives when they feel that, by a certain point, they will be experiencing so much suffering that they would no longer be themselves.

Can my colleague understand that position?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what I infer from the hon. member's comments to be his respect and advocacy for the individual autonomy of every person.

While I arrive at this debate informed by my beliefs, I would offer in reply that the opportunity we have with this bill is to provide safeguards for individuals who exercise that choice, which is legal in this country. We must make sure that there is no coercion, that it is always informed, that there is proper oversight, that when someone has made that choice, they have done so freely without interference and were of sound mind and judgment at the time, and that there are always safeguards in place to protect vulnerable people when they are in their most vulnerable moments.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the current legislation has failed to protect Canadians with mental health and some veterans. Why does the government need to listen this time and make sure that protection is there for vulnerable Canadians?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the example I offered about veterans. We have seen demonstrated the failure of existing legislation to safeguard against abuses. I cannot think of anyone who is more vulnerable than someone living with an operational stress injury like PTSD after serving our country. They seek help, have the courage to call for help from the government they served, and then they are offered MAID.

We need to make sure there are legal protections and independent review. This is just one of many examples of where we need to make sure there are sufficient guardrails. This is truly too important for us not to get right.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start my speech by congratulating all members of the House for the debate so far. I have been here observing it. I thought the member for Winnipeg North had an excellent question about hospice. The Bloc Québécois members talked about a very difficult subject in a sensitive manner. I am not sure if Canadians are always proud of us in the House, but I definitely think they could be this afternoon and morning with this important debate.

This debate is quite frankly overdue and necessary. Like I said, I commend members in the House again for the compassionate way in which we have been able to have a dialogue, with many members I am sure having many different opinions.

In addition to Bill C-41 and the content in it, a general discussion about MAID is important, regardless of where, I might add, someone is on the issue and whether they are an advocate or believe there should be additional safeguards.

Canada is about to hit the highest rate of medically assisted dying in the developed world. In 2024, we were number two in the world, next to the Netherlands. We were at about 5.1% of total deaths. I do not believe we have a national number yet for 2025, and if someone wants to interject, I am happy to take it, but for Ontario in 2025, the rate was 7.3%. We are creeping up to about 10% of total deaths being done by medical assistance in dying. I do not believe this was a number that was projected or that we thought would occur at the time that the legislation was initially passed.

Numbers do not always tell the whole story. In fact, they rarely do, but data points can point us in the right direction. Regardless of where someone is on the issue, I think we need to have a discussion, especially as MAID creeps up closer and closer to 10% of total deaths in Canada.

On to the substance of the legislation, one of the more troubling elements that has occurred since 2019, when I was first elected, is the potential inclusion of mental illness as the sole reason for accessing medical assistance in dying. This is challenging not because mental illness is not as real as a physical illness. It very much is. In fact, I would say 100% is. The challenge is that with some mental illnesses, it is very difficult, according to the experts and the practitioners, to fully understand the impacts of certain mental illnesses. What we would never, ever want to see is that there was a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

I think most people in here, regardless of the suffering if in fact it was for a finite amount of time, would want to be there in supporting people to get through to the other side of that. If it is possible to get to a point where someone can once again enjoy living and the suffering is no longer overwhelming, I am sure the vast majority of Canadians would want to see the community and health practitioners helping a person get through it.

Once again, I would like to commend the House on a thoughtful dialogue. I thank the House for allowing me to contribute to it.

(Bill S-212. On the Order: Private Members' Business:)

March 12, 2026 — Braedon Clark (Sackville—Bedford— Preston) — Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health of Bill S-212, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada.

National Strategy for Children and Youth Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Sackville—Bedford—Preston is not present to move the item as announced in today's Notice Paper. Pursuant to Standing Order 94, since this is the second time this item is not dealt with on the date established by the order of precedence, the item will be dropped from the Order Paper.

(Order discharged and item dropped from Order Paper)

It being 1:31 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:31 p.m.)