Debates of Nov. 4th, 2026

Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, through Bill C-41, we are establishing a framework that would allow people living with conditions such as Alzheimer's to make a free and informed decision about their end-of-life care while they are still capable of doing so. This decision was not taken lightly. We heard deeply moving testimony from many individuals living with these conditions, and they expressed a desire to be able to make that choice while they still have capacity.

I would like to ask my colleague this: What does he say to those individuals who came forward to give testimony and who are asking for the right to make that choice?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. I would like to thank the member across the way for the question, because it is important. This issue is a matter of conscience, and we all have different perspectives on it, which is quite evident, but it comes down to the point that I made earlier that this is a final decision. If we get it wrong and we cannot communicate properly and evidence the refusal at the last moment, we cannot risk making a mistake in this case.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am outraged this evening. We have the right to have different opinions. We have the right to hold certain beliefs and to disregard general statements or science. However, what we do not have the right to do is to disregard human dignity. I am hearing so much oversimplification right now. I am not saying that what I went through with my father, who had ALS, is right for everyone.

That is not the case. We are asking if we can let people make their own end-of-life choices with dignity.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important. This is extraordinarily contentious. It is absolutely a matter of conscience. We have different perspectives, but this transcends that. The role of the House of Commons transcends the individual opinion, in that we have to err on the side of caution until we collectively understand the impact.

We cannot take the risk of making a mistake. We cannot take the risk of not understanding the context. Science and the perception and reality of all of the things we study change over time. They are always a moving target. In this instance with this legislation, the consequences are literally fatal, and we cannot take the risk of making a mistake.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Homewood Research Institute, which is based in Guelph and is a global leader in mental health research, for the really incredible webinar it did outlining why it was important not to proceed with permitting medical assistance in dying for folks who have a chronic mental illness. Part of that is to continue to give them hope and to make sure that nationally we provide access to care.

What I am concerned about when listening to the debate tonight is that I feel like there is some level of disparagement toward the palliative care practitioners in this country and the people who administer MAID, who absolutely seek the consent of people and accompany them with dignity in their final moments. I just want to make sure that we are not straying into that space.

I would also point out that if we sign a “do not resuscitate” order, that order is respected should it come to that in a hospital. An advance directive is essentially the same thing.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the genuine question from the member opposite.

I have been through the palliative care process with my father and other members of my family, and I understand completely the compassion of health care providers and their desire to provide the standard of care that we have come to expect. However, that does not take away from the circumstance that we find ourselves contemplating, where long periods of time can transpire between the order and the action, with a changing in circumstances and a changing in the understanding of the patient and how well the practitioner can understand what the patient wants. We cannot make a mistake.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, tonight, we have gathered to discuss a particularly sensitive issue that raises legal, ethical and social questions affecting patients suffering from an incurable disease, their families and health care professionals. I believe this is a topic we all take very seriously.

Let us take a step back. The law on medical assistance in dying came into effect in Canada in 2016. That marked a significant change in Canadian society's approach to end-of-life care. MAID provides eligible individuals with an additional choice regarding their care by allowing them to end their suffering with dignity. There are certainly strict guidelines in place. Medical assistance in dying is reserved for adults who meet strict eligibility criteria. We are talking, for example, about people living with an incurable illness who are approaching the end of life, such as cancer patients, or individuals with an incurable condition that causes irreversible physical decline and significant suffering, such as certain neurodegenerative disorders.

There are guidelines that must be followed. The consent must be informed. The person has the right to withdraw consent at any point in the process. The passage of the bill in 2016 was not the end of the debate. I would say that it was the beginning and the continuation of an ongoing societal discussion on the subject of MAID. Over the past decade alone, we have pondered substantive questions about MAID, such as whether a person has a right to set the conditions for their end of life. This led to questions about dignity and suffering. As we know, the law was expanded in 2021. Initially, it was for naturally foreseeable death. The law was amended in 2021 to include people suffering from an irreversible illness that causes significant suffering. At the time, as a citizen, I heard very touching testimony from people who asked that their situation be taken into consideration so that they could have the right to make this choice for themselves.

This also raises questions about the protection of vulnerable individuals, consent, and the ability to make a free and informed decision, as well as what to do when an illness deprives a person of that ability. With Bill C-41, we aim to update Canada's legislative framework on medical assistance in dying, particularly with regard to people with mental illness and advance requests. We are therefore clarifying matters with respect to these two elements. I would say that this is another step in a collective reflection that began more than a decade ago.

One key component of Bill C-41 seeks to allow for advance MAID requests. Under the current legislation, a person must be able to give informed consent to receive this care. They must understand their medical condition, their options, and the consequences of their decision. As a general rule, they must also confirm their consent immediately before MAID is administered. Very strict guidelines are in place. However, some diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia, can lead to a gradual loss of decision-making capacity. As the disease progresses, a person may lose the ability to make an informed choice at the time they wish to receive MAID. Under the current rules, they cannot access this option, even if they had clearly expressed their wishes earlier in life when they were still capable of making that decision.

Our government believes that Canadians with terminal illnesses should be able to make informed decisions about their future care while they still have the capacity to do so. That is why, with this bill, we intend to allow eligible adults who receive an early diagnosis of a terminal illness that is likely to cause them to lose their decision-making capacity to make an advance request for MAID. For example, an adult diagnosed with early-stage Alzheimer's disease could specify in advance the conditions and circumstances under which they would want to receive MAID at a more advanced stage of their illness, when they would no longer be able to make that decision for themselves.

The underlying objective is to respect the person's wishes and their individual end-of-life choices, which I believe are based on deep and careful reflection. We heard some very moving testimony. Loved ones of people with Alzheimer's said that MAID should be expanded to allow people in these situations to make informed choices while they still can.

An advance request does not necessarily mean that MAID will automatically be administered at a later time. The eligibility criteria must be met and the strict guidelines must be followed. For example, two independent assessments will always be required for advance requests to ensure that the conditions described in the request are met. There must be confirmation that the person is in an advanced and irreversible state of decline and experiencing profound suffering, so the independent assessments still need to be carried out.

The person may also signify, through sounds or gestures, that they withdraw their consent when MAID is about to be administered. If the person does not appear to consent to MAID, the procedure will be stopped. Obviously, a family member cannot submit an advance request on behalf of someone else. The aim is really to respect the choice of the person who made the request while they still had the capacity to do so.

In our discussions tonight, it is important to understand the key role that the provinces and territories will play in this matter. At the federal level, we can amend the criminal framework, including the Criminal Code, since this falls under our jurisdiction. However, the delivery of health care services is a provincial responsibility. The federal government alone cannot oversee the implementation of advance requests for MAID. Even if Parliament were to amend the Criminal Code for this, the provinces would also have to take steps to ensure that advance requests would be available in their health care systems. As I mentioned, the provinces are responsible for the organization and delivery of health care in their jurisdictions, and it will be up to them to decide whether they want to implement this option and how it will be carried out. What I mean is that, even if the federal law changes, it does not become automatic across Canada. The provinces will have to decide whether to implement the framework within their borders. Co‑operation with the provinces and territories will therefore be critical so that everyone who is eligible can have access. As the federal government, we will continue to work with the provinces as we make progress on this matter.

I will now discuss the second part. Through Bill C-41, we will maintain the exclusion for cases when mental illness is the sole underlying health condition. After careful consideration, following committee deliberations, and after hearing from numerous experts, we came to an agreement that MAID should not be expanded to cover individuals for whom mental illness is the sole underlying health condition. That said, we recognize that mental illness can cause profound suffering, even when it is not necessarily as visible as in the case of other physical health conditions. Canadians living with mental health issues deserve to have their suffering taken seriously.

In the context of MAID, however, serious concerns remain regarding the ability to assess these situations safely and consistently. For these reasons, we decided not to expand MAID eligibility to individuals whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. As I mentioned, this decision was not taken lightly. A parliamentary committee made up of senators and MPs from the various political parties examined the issue. Health experts and stakeholders also gave evidence. Finally, following all these consultations, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying recommended against expanding medical assistance in dying. At the same time, other consultations took place. The conclusion was that uncertainty remains as to whether these situations can be assessed reliably and consistently. In light of that, our government believes that the current exclusion is the most appropriate approach.

In closing, we are debating substantive issues tonight, issues that affect the choices people make when they are considering their end of life. I think it is important that legislators put a framework in place, particularly for people suffering from conditions such as dementia or Alzheimer's. It is important to give these individuals the opportunity to make a free and informed choice about their end-of-life care.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member believes, as I do, that the role of the state is to ensure that the conditions are in place for a person to make a free and informed choice, not to impose what it thinks is best on a person who is suffering. However, when it comes to mental illness, on what grounds should the state restrict or undermine the right to self-determination of a person with a mental disorder who has been resistant to treatment for decades, as long as their decision-making capacity is not affected?

Decision-making capacity can be assessed. Psychiatrists are already able to assess it when a mental illness exists alongside another condition, such as cancer. Why is it more complicated when the person just has a mental disorder? On what grounds should suffering that has become intolerable be considered reasonable under section 1 of the charter? On what basis, then, can discrimination be considered reasonable, when all of the experts told us that a blanket prohibition is discriminatory?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that this decision was not taken lightly. Various experts were heard. Consultations were held. Work was done in committee. Of course, my colleague is well aware of that. The conclusion was that, in the case of individuals living with mental illness, there remained concerns about whether these situations could be assessed in a safe and consistent manner in the context of medical assistance in dying. Therefore, the most responsible course of action is not to proceed with the expansion at this time.

I want to mention that Bill C‑41 is consistent with Quebec legislation. In Quebec, advance requests are already in use. With the bill, Quebec medical staff who administer MAID are protected. In terms of the mental health issue, Bill C‑41 is consistent with Quebec's current legislation.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague just a simple question about the process around an advance directive. Does he think that a person who has signed an advance directive and then would be about to be killed on the basis of that advance directive should have it explained to them before they are killed what is about to happen? In the moment when their life would be ended, should the person be told what is about to happen to them?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that people suffering from diseases such as Alzheimer's must be able to make free and informed decisions about their end-of-life care. People suffering from illnesses such as cancer or neurodegenerative disorders are able to make that decision immediately before MAID is provided.

For people with Alzheimer's, that choice is taken away from them by the disease. An advance request would allow a person diagnosed at an early stage to specify the conditions under which they would wish to receive MAID once they reach a later stage of the disease and are no longer capable of making that decision on their own. Two independent health care professionals would assess whether the conditions set out in this request are met. If at the time that MAID is to be provided, the person appears, through sounds or gestures, to be resisting or refusing the procedure, it would be stopped.

Rigorous safeguards remain in place while also allowing people with illnesses such as Alzheimer's to make a free and informed choice.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this evening, we are discussing an issue that is really very emotional and far-reaching. In a debate such as this, I believe the words we choose matter.

Following his very thoughtful speech, I would ask my colleague to speak to the importance of personal autonomy, individual choice and the fact that medical assistance in dying must always remain an option, never an obligation.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, choosing our words carefully in a debate like this is a matter of respect. There were moving accounts from people who courageously testified about their health conditions and how they envisioned their end-of-life care. I think the least we can do is show some respect for these people and be mindful of the words we use in the debate.

The idea behind this is not to create an obligation, but to give people another choice.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my comments today by reiterating a request that has been made by many of my colleagues here in the House of Commons, which is to split the bill.

Bill C-41 is a real moral dilemma. The way it has been politically manipulated is of great concern. It is only by splitting the bill into two separate decisions, two separate votes by members of the House, that I think it could be fairly presented to the public as an appropriate examination of the very serious medical and moral issues that are embedded within it.

I was trying to explain to one of my constituents earlier what the moral dilemma is exactly. What I found to be helpful was a reference to the movie The Dark Knight. There is a scene in which the Joker calls Batman and tells him that his girlfriend, Rachel Dawes, has been left in one room. On the other side of Gotham, the DA, Harvey Dent, has been left in the other room. The Joker tells Batman that he has to make a choice and that it is going to suck regardless. It is going to be a really hard, horrible decision. He only gets to make one decision on who he gets to save.

That is what has been presented to us with Bill C-41. Every member of the House, from all parties, is being put in this situation by the Prime Minister and whomever in the government is making the decision to combine these two elements of a very complicated and dense issue into one bill. Whoever is making that decision is putting every single one of us in the exact same situation that the Joker put Batman in.

We are not going to feel good about the decision we make at the end of the day. Either we are going to vote against the bill, which has a very important and needed element in it, to further protect people with mental illness from euthanasia, or we are going to vote against the bill, because it also expands euthanasia to include people with dementia and other illnesses. These are really two things that should not be combined.

I feel obligated to point out the cynical, cold and callous nature in which these two things have been combined into one bill. Every member of the House had an opportunity to vote on a Conservative private member's bill that would have only addressed the expansion of MAID to those facing mental illness. All members of the Conservative Party voted for that bill. All members of the NDP voted for that bill. In fact, we even had one bold, brave soul on the other side of the aisle, in the Liberal ranks, vote for that bill. The remainder of that party voted against it. Why? What would possibly be the reason, other than the cold and cynical ploy to wedge those of us, with a heavy heart and a heavy conscience on this issue, into combining our very well-intentioned opposition to the expansion of euthanasia to those with mental illness and forcing us to also reconcile that with the expansion to more Canadians?

That is not the way this place should work. I will be honest. I appreciate that politics is an ugly and dirty game. I can appreciate that a lot of this is about wedging people constantly. On something so heavy, on something that is such a matter of conscience, I really do hope that the government will reconsider and split the bill when it comes time to vote.

How I would like to use the remainder of my time is to address why this is such a concern for people. I think a good place to start is to capture the fact that since 2016, MAID, or as I call it, euthanasia, has become a very common form of death for people in this country. In 2016, it was slightly over 1,000 people that were killed by euthanasia. In 2024, it was 16,499, which is the most recent statistic, in one year. In total, over an eight-year period, over 76,000 Canadians have had their lives ended through the practice of euthanasia.

I raise this because I think that there are two ways that people look at that information. Some people might look at that and think that this is a sign of progress. I shudder at that thought, as do many Canadians. I look at that number and my heart breaks. I know many people who have been in very serious situations, facing very serious illnesses.

I am a stage 4 cancer survivor. There was a time in my life when my mother and I sat in a room and a doctor said to me that I might not live. I know what that is like. I know what it is like to sit in a cancer ward and see people who are on their third, fourth or fifth year of chemotherapy. I know what it is like to sit in a hospital waiting room and see people lined up waiting to go through radiation, hoping that maybe this time it is going to work. I have seen people face death. I have faced death, so when I see numbers like this, my heart breaks, because I wonder how many of those people made the decision to end their life based on fear and because they were scared. I have been there, and I have seen people there.

When we talk about advance directives and a medical professional approaching a sick person saying that they should make a decision now about how their life is going to end, it is very concerning. The emotional roller coaster of a serious illness is very real. There are times when a person may be depressed. There are times when their spirit may be broken, and they might consider it a good decision to end their life at some point on their own terms. However, we never know what life is going to throw at us, and we never know how our life is going to change. We do not know how it is going to feel in the moment. Opposing advance directives is about saying that at minimum, people deserve the dignity to make such a choice of great finality in the moment, and that we should not have a system designed such that potential coercion or the exploitation of a very emotional and difficult situation leads to a decision that a person may pay the ultimate price for.

We have heard from families on the other side of this debate. We have heard from people with loved ones in very extreme situations on the other side of this debate. I do not want to pretend that this is simple. I am not trying to diminish another point of view. I get that this is complicated. I am not trying to point a finger at anyone and say there is a bad guy in this story. What I am trying to do is point out that these are very serious things we are debating in the House of Commons, both from a moral perspective and from a health care perspective. I am trying to point out that people come to their conclusions on these issues for very good reasons, whether that is their personal life, family life or religious or philosophical convictions, whatever they may be.

Wherever we wind up on this debate, I believe, humbly, that it is a cheapening of the issue to combine both of these very complicated questions into one bill. If I could leave anyone listening to my words with one message, it would be to please consider the weight of this. If we are taking this as seriously as we should, then it should not be something that gets lumped into some kind of omnibus euthanasia discussion. Every single way we decide which Canadians become vulnerable to the practice of euthanasia and which ones do not should be treated with the weight of significant individual policies and legislative decisions in mind, as it should be.

I would also like to elaborate on why I think it is very important that we consider the difficulty of asking an ill person to make this decision in an advance request context.

I remember when I was first told that I might pass away from stage 4 cancer. The hardest part of the entire ordeal for the year and a half that I was a hospital patient, in the hospital every day, was seeing my mom go through it. I can absolutely understand why a sick person might say, “I do not want to put the responsibility on my family to have to make a difficult decision about my life one day.” I can absolutely understand why someone would say, “The moral thing to do is to take that responsibility onto myself.” To anyone who feels that way, my word of encouragement would be that if they talk to the relatives of people who have been in those situations, they will find that many of them were very happy to have taken care of their ill loved ones and were very happy to have been by their side even when it was difficult.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague may have lost it. Since when do members impose their personal beliefs on someone who wants to end their suffering? I am shocked.

Can my colleague explain to the House the difference between therapeutic obstinacy and dying with dignity?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the member opposite has asked a very silly question. We have been very clear in saying people should make the choice in the moment that death is being presented to them as an option by their government through the health care system. We are not taking the choice away. We are saying do not hold them to a decision they may have made years prior under different circumstances. Make sure that they can make the decision in an informed capacity in the moment.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague would prefer to see this bill split and for there to be two votes. If the bill is not split, would he at least agree to a split vote at second reading stage?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do think, ideally, the legislation would be split. If not, a vote split would be a great idea. Anything that we can do to highlight the weight of every part of this legislation, the moral and medical significance of it, would be welcomed.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to, as my colleague has, drill into the practical aspects of advance directives, not just the theoretical questions around it. Some people who think, in theory, that advance consent makes sense, I think would maybe be chastened by some of these practical realities.

A person can get a diagnosis for something that is very frightening and also something that they have not yet experienced. They do not have any lived experience with having that illness, but they know it is coming or they know it is on the way. They are potentially presented with a worst-case scenario. There are many cases of this where people kind of catastrophize what has been presented to them in the process of encouraging them to sign something or accept facilitated death.

Hypothetically, based not on someone's lived experience but fear of the future, they sign a document and their real experience of living with that condition may be very different from that expectation. However, it is others in their life, like doctors or family members, who have to decide whether what a person signed a year ago fits with their present expressed experience.

Do these practical realities not raise serious problems for the implementation of something like advance directives?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of concerns, as he accurately raised. We hear from the government terms like “safeguards” to give the impression that there are appropriate safeguards already in place in the euthanasia regime in this country.

I would never cite the United Nations in almost any other circumstance but since we have a government that likes to appeal to international organizations like it, the United Nations has said these safeguards are not appropriate. Track 2 euthanasia is already wreaking havoc on people in very different circumstances than the government initially intended it to target. The safeguards do not work and believing that an expansion of euthanasia is going to be controlled by pre-existing failed safeguards makes absolutely no sense.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in such a sensitive debate, I would like to ask my colleague why it is important to ensure that we use precise language. In Canada, the term used is medical assistance in dying. We have precise terms that we have been using for nearly a decade now. Why is it important to ensure we use the correct language when debating such a sensitive issue? In what way does this also constitute a matter of respect for the people concerned?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

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.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

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.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in 2016, the adoption of Canada's MAID legislation marked a significant change in Canadian society. It gave people living with an incurable illness and experiencing intolerable suffering an additional option in their end-of-life care: medical assistance in dying.

My colleague cited a number of statistics and shared several anecdotes in his speech, but I would like a clear answer. Is he for or against allowing individuals to make a free and informed choice about MAID based on their own circumstances?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

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.