Debates of Nov. 4th, 2026

Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to start off by giving a quote directly from the legislation. Under clause 5, it states:

A medical practitioner or nurse practitioner must not administer a substance to a person to cause their death on the basis of an advance request if the person demonstrates, by words, sounds or gestures, refusal or resistance to have the substance administered to them. Once the person demonstrates such refusal or resistance, medical assistance in dying can no longer be provided to them on the basis of that request.

We need to think about what the legislation says. A number of members of the Conservative Party have stood in their place and said something completely opposite to that. I suggest that that is what we have to guard against: misinformation on such a serious debate.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to read the next paragraph:

If the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner is in doubt as to whether the person's words, sounds or gestures constitute a demonstration of refusal or resistance to having the substance administered to them, they must not, at that time or at any time within the following 30 clear days, administer the substance to the person.

If the government cannot even get its own legislation right, why is it forcing us to pass it through on an expedited timeline?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows full well that the role of the state is not to presume it knows better than the person who is suffering what is best for that individual in a matter as intimate as their own death. The role of the state is to ensure the conditions necessary for a free and informed choice.

This is what I would ask my colleague: On what basis should the state infringe upon or restrict the right to self-determination of a person whose mental illness is resistant to treatment, as long as their decision-making capacity remains intact? On what grounds should chronic suffering that has become intolerable be considered reasonable? On what grounds would discrimination be reasonable?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am never going to argue with someone who is advocating for smaller government, but I know there is a very inconsistent way in which the member is pushing for that.

The role of the state, at its core, is to protect those who cannot protect themselves, to protect the vulnerable. What we have seen in the current MAID regime, as evidenced by the litany of cases I could and have referenced about the lack of safeguards, is that the system is in many ways preying on people who do not have the capacity or independence to resist it. That is exactly why it is important to get legislation like this right. It is why I believe advance requests can never properly account for all of the issues that have been raised in the course of the debate this evening, which I do not believe can be rectified.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleague need not show any contempt for my position here in the House. I was democratically elected.

We pay taxes to the Canadian government, and as long as we pay taxes to the Canadian government, we will be represented in this Parliament. I would therefore ask the member to apologize for his contempt for me.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I did not hear the rules being broken. Could the member for Montcalm briefly clarify that?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he would not answer my question because my presence here is not legitimate, since I am not a federalist.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

That is a matter of debate, and I will not intervene in the debate. I will leave it to the members to discuss it outside the House. I did not hear anything during the exchange, although I did listen carefully to the remarks that were made. I do not have the ability to listen to the interpretation provided to us by the interpreters. As such, I did not hear anything that violated the Standing Orders of the House or caused a breach of a member's privilege.

The member can check the blues or Hansard once what was said has been transcribed. If he then deems it necessary, he may raise another point of order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague for his excellent work on this important issue.

He has spoken a lot in the context of this issue about hope, about people finding hope, about people recovering and about people being able to continue their lives under new circumstances. I think that relates to the point about advance requests. In the last report on MAID in Canada, 692 people made a request for MAID and then changed their mind. That can happen in the absence of advance directives, but under an advance directives framework, if someone signs an advance directive and then loses capacity or is simply not told before a health care practitioner takes their life, then there is no opportunity for them to change their mind.

It is clear in the legislation that if a person actively resists, the process is supposed to stop, but a health care practitioner is not required to inform them of what they are about to do. There is no such requirement. How does that take into consideration the almost 700 people who changed their mind?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the problem here. Because so much is being left to how this system would be implemented, we do not actually know what safeguards in practice, if any, would exist. I will note as well that the lack of an expiration for advance requests is a key problem. Conceivably, someone could live with a diagnosis for 10 to 15 years, which means an advance request could collect dust on a shelf for that long as well. I know there have been cases where people had signed up at one point to be organ donors and later regretted it.

There is a litany of problems with this that need to be dealt with.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-41, the medical assistance in dying safeguards act. This is one of the most profound questions Parliament can consider. It touches on life, death, dignity, autonomy, compassion, equality and our responsibilities to one another. It is deeply personal, affecting individuals confronting serious illness, their families, caregivers and medical professionals. There are deeply held differences of opinion on this issue shaped by personal experience, ethical traditions, religious beliefs and understandings of human dignity. For that reason, this is a matter of conscience and a free vote for the New Democratic caucus.

At the heart of this debate is a fundamental human rights question: How do we respect individual dignity, autonomy and rights while protecting those who may be vulnerable? Every person deserves to live and die with dignity. That means respecting the right to make deeply personal decisions about one's body, health and end-of-life care. It also means ensuring that people are not abandoned by the systems and institutions meant to support them.

Canada's debate about assisted dying has been shaped by decades of advocacy, legal challenges and difficult ethical questions. We all remember the case of Sue Rodriguez in 1993. Former NDP MP Svend Robinson stood by her. It was a difficult moral issue then, and it remains difficult today. Living with ALS, Rodriguez challenged Canada's prohibition on assisted dying. She argued that she should have the right to seek assistance in ending her life before her illness took away her ability to do so. The Supreme Court rejected her challenge in a narrow 5-4 decision, but her struggle brought questions about autonomy, equality, security of the person and dignity into the national conversation.

More than two decades later, the Supreme Court revisited those questions in Carter v. Canada. In February 2015, the court unanimously found that the Criminal Code prohibitions on physician-assisted dying violated the charter rights of certain competent adults experiencing grievous and irremediable medical conditions causing enduring and intolerable suffering. That decision was a landmark moment in Canadian human rights law.

Parliament responded with Bill C-14 in 2016, establishing Canada's first federal framework for medical assistance in dying. In 2021, Bill C-7 expanded eligibility for certain individuals whose natural death was not reasonably foreseeable, while introducing different safeguards. Subsequent legislation, including Bill C-39 and Bill C-62, delayed the proposed expansion to people whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. Now Bill C-41 is before us to respond to the courts, and Parliament is addressing two critical questions: one, the issue of advance requests and, two, those whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness.

On the first question, what Bill C-41 would do is establish a framework for advance requests for MAID, and it would only be permitted in provinces and territories that have the required legislative regime in force. Because Bill C-41 stipulates that an advance request is permitted only in provinces or territories that have the required legislative regime in force, it raises serious concerns about unequal access. Canadians should not have different rights depending on where they live, yet this is where we are at with Bill C-41. I will have more to say about that.

On the second point, the bill would maintain the exclusion of people whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. There are different human rights perspectives on that question. Excluding people solely because of a mental illness raises serious charter equality concerns. There is an argument that people should not be denied access to a legal medical procedure simply because of their diagnosis and that eligibility should be considered through appropriate individualized assessments and safeguards.

At the same time, mental health experts and disability rights organizations have raised concerns about the ability to determine when a mental illness is irremediable, the availability of appropriate treatment, and profound disparities in access to care. There is no question that these concerns deserve serious consideration. For example, end-of-life advocacy groups view the exclusion of mental illness as discriminatory and unconstitutional, emphasizing bodily autonomy and equity under the law.

Dying With Dignity Canada expressed deep disappointment over legislative barriers, stating that preventing a group of people from having access to a legal medical procedure simply because of their diagnosis violates charter rights. The organization maintains that individuals should have equal rights to apply based on rigorous individualized assessments.

On the flip side, Inclusion Canada, a leading disability rights group, argued that expanded eligibility perpetuates dangerous ableist assumptions that life with a disability is not worth living. Meanwhile, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health notes that there is a lack of established criteria and consensus among psychiatrists for if and when a mental illness should be considered irremediable, alongside stark disparities in access to care.

To that end, there is another dimension to this debate that we cannot ignore. The right to make a choice is meaningful only when people have real choices available to them. Experts, disability advocates and health care organizations have raised concerns about whether people experiencing profound suffering always have access to the care and support they need. Some warn that assisted dying risks becoming an answer to suffering that could be alleviated through better access to health care, affordable housing, disability supports and community services. The government's own report has identified inadequate funding for mental health services.

A person living with a disability should not have to fight for basic services, appropriate housing or the resources required to live independently. A person experiencing mental health challenges should not face inaccessible treatment, long wait-lists or a shortage of community-based supports. Someone approaching the end of life should not be denied quality palliative care because of where they live or their financial circumstances. Telling someone that a service exists is not the same as ensuring they can access it.

Palliative care, counselling, disability services and mental health treatment must be timely, affordable and appropriate. This is not an argument against individual autonomy. It is an argument that autonomy must be supported by the social and economic conditions that allow people to exercise it meaningfully. The federal government has a responsibility to work with the provinces and territories to address these gaps. Dignity cannot be separated from the material conditions in which people live.

In June, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying recommended that the federal government indefinitely exclude people whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. The committee also identified a pressing need for increased and more equitable access to adequate mental health services. People deserve timely access to treatment, counselling, psychiatrists, psychologists and community-based services. The committee's call for more equitable mental health services must not be lost in this debate. Maintaining an exclusion in the Criminal Code cannot substitute for the government's responsibility to invest in mental health care.

We must also consider how this legislation would affect people differently. People living in poverty, experiencing homelessness, living with disabilities or living in remote communities can face significant barriers to accessing health care. First nations, Inuit and Métis communities have experienced generations of inequities in health care, including inadequate access to culturally safe services and palliative care.

The government must engage indigenous governments and organizations meaningfully in implementation, respecting indigenous self-determination and the diversity of perspectives within indigenous communities. We must ask whether every person can make an informed and voluntary decision without pressure, discrimination or the absence of meaningful alternatives. This is a fundamental human rights question.

I began by noting that Canada's debate about assisted dying has been shaped by decades of advocacy, legal challenges and difficult ethical questions. I suspect that this is not the end to legal challenges on this question. There are people who believe that the right to die with dignity is inseparable from the right to make decisions about one's own body and the circumstances of their death. There are others who approach this question through concerns for the sanctity of life, the protection of the vulnerable, disability rights and the responsibilities of society. We must make room for these differences and chart a path forward.

Regardless of which party one belongs to in the House, we can all agree that every person deserves dignity, compassion and access to appropriate health care and support. No one should be made to feel that their life is less valuable because they live with a disability, an illness, poverty or circumstances that make life more difficult. The right to make decisions about one's own life and death cannot become an excuse for the government's own withdrawal from its responsibility to provide care.

There is the important work of the parliamentary committee. People with lived experiences, families, disability advocates, indigenous organizations, medical professionals and other experts must have the opportunity to contribute and be heard. We must not rush the bill through committee. We owe Canadians a process that is thoughtful, transparent and grounded in human rights, and we must respect the dignity of people at the end of life, protect those who may be vulnerable to coercion or who have inadequate support, and build a health care system that gives everyone the opportunity to live and die with dignity.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, tonight's debate deals with fundamental issues of dignity and autonomy regarding the options available to people suffering from incurable illnesses. We have heard various accounts from people suffering from diseases such as Alzheimer's, a condition that robs them of the choice to die with dignity.

I would like to ask my colleague why it is important to listen to the experiences of these individuals and to establish a framework that will allow them to make a free and informed choice while they are still able to do so.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises the issue of advance requests, and that is an important issue we are debating today as part of this piece of legislation. With advance requests, there is a set of eligibility rules and safeguards prescribed in the bill, and people would have to meet all of those requirements in order for the advance request to be valid. With that being said, of course, people experience illness and later on, in different stages of the illness, it is possible that they might have a different viewpoint. They might express that in a different way, or maybe sometimes they do not. That is the essence of the question that needs to be resolved.

Through the committee process, it would be absolutely critical for the government not to rush through but to invite different witnesses with different perspectives, for them to be heard and for the committee members to ask important questions in order to arrive at the correct decision in moving forward.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right to point out that Svend Robinson and Sue Rodriguez advanced the discussion on MAID in 1993 in British Columbia.

I would like to say something about the constitutional nature of equitable access to advance requests throughout the country whether or not a parliament passes legislation. I would say that this could be a reasonable infringement, according to the Supreme Court, given that the provinces are responsible for providing end-of-life care. A debate could take place in provincial legislatures that do not have a law. It could even become an election issue, in which case there would surely be an appeal to the Supreme Court if a government ever opted for a total prohibition.

As for structural vulnerabilities, I agree that it is absolutely essential to improve people's living conditions, whatever those living conditions may be. If we are talking about structural vulnerabilities in relation to mental illness, a scientific study conducted by Downar and Quinn says that structural marginalization is not a key factor in requests for MAID.

Here is a quote:

...according to all available indicators....they clearly refute the notion that medical assistance in dying is driven by marginalization or inadequate service delivery on a significant scale in Canada. While there may be exceptions, the anecdotal cases cited to support this claim rarely stand up to scrutiny.

We are therefore in favour of better living conditions, but in the case of someone who has been suffering from mental illness for decades and who does not respond to treatment, I have a problem with someone like that being told to simply carry on suffering.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, two important issues were raised in that question. One is a constitutional question. I note that in the special committee's report, there were dissenting opinions that called for the government, in fact, to raise a reference question to the courts on the constitutionality of denying people with mental illness access to MAID. The government decided not to exercise that right, and I think that is an important question that should be raised at committee and explored.

On the other issue, with respect to the lack of support and services for people, there is one study that the member referenced. There are also a lot of other lived experiences, most certainly, of advocates, people who are advocates for disability, for mental health, for people living in palliative care, etc., who say it is absolutely critical that services be made available. Otherwise, it is possible that some people might opt for MAID. That is the thing we do not want to allow to happen.

Hence, I hope that in the upcoming budget to be tabled tomorrow, the government steps it up and matches its words with action, particularly in support of mental health, and provides the needed support across the country for people who need to access treatment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has become evident to me, spending some time in other parts of the world talking to legislators elsewhere, how much Canada has become an international pariah. A source of its international shame relates to the protection of the rights of people with disabilities. There has been high-level criticism of Canada, and in particular, the MAID regime, in terms of how it treats people living with disabilities.

I have spoken to disability rights organizations that are deeply concerned about how, on a regular basis, people with disabilities live with unprompted proposals for MAID from people who are supposed to be supporting them, essentially sending them the message that people in authority think they would be better off dead. This is a source of shame for our country and something we need to take seriously and change. Meanwhile, the government wants to further push MAID in spite of all of these concerns.

Why do we not take this criticism seriously and listen to people with disabilities who are raising these concerns?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the important issue here is this. At the nub of the issue, what I want to see is for the government to step up in providing the necessary supports for people who face difficulties and people who have mental health challenges, all the way from early diagnosis to prevention to treatment. That is not happening right now across the country, and most certainly is not happening in British Columbia and in Vancouver East. That was the case when the Conservatives were in government, and it is the case now with the Liberals in government, so I would say to everybody, step it up for the community so that people are not faced with impossible choices and decisions.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying and health care are matters of shared jurisdiction. Criminal law is defined at the federal level, while the provinces are responsible for delivering health care.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on how the provinces are prepared to manage the transition to advance requests.

Are they adequately equipped to supervise health care professionals to ensure that it is carried out safely?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the issue. The fact is, this would now be subject to the provinces, and I think there would be different approaches, different infrastructure, with respect to that.

It does raise the question, again, around the federal health care transfers and the dollars that are necessary to support provinces and territories in order to put the framework together and support the medical practitioners in getting the job done. I would urge the member to say to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance that in this upcoming budget, they must properly resource provinces and territories in health care funding and in the transfer, and live up to what the Liberals promised when they were in opposition and when they were in government in terms of the necessary increases in funding to support provinces and territories to do the job right for all Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We have time for a quick question.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing some interesting things this evening. There is a problem here. I wonder whether my colleague fully appreciates the clinical approach that underpins all of this. Right up until the very end, physicians support patients and ask whether this is still what they want. Quebec is prepared when it comes to advance requests.

I have two—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the member. I had specifically asked for a quick question.

The hon. member for Vancouver East has 30 seconds to reply.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is always further ahead than the rest of the country. On this issue and on child care, it has always led, and so the rest of the country is always following. There is no question about it.

However, this is a really important debate to raise some of the issues that have surfaced about whether it is right or wrong. It is an individual choice in terms of exercising MAID. It is fundamental that the government ensure that those who are suffering are supported in every way, and if they exercise their autonomy to have MAID, we need to support them in that process as well.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before I go to debate, I would remind members that we have reached five hours of debate. According to Standing Order 74(1), members no longer need to indicate to the Chair that they are splitting their time. They will all be 10-minute and five-minute questions and comments.

The hon. member for Bow River.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in this House and speak for the constituents of Bow River. This is a deeply held and personal issue for so many people across the country. I am often skeptical of government intervention in the economy, on the farm and in the private lives of Canadians. I believe the government should respect the freedom of people in their own decisions.

I also believe Parliament has the duty to protect life, especially when the law puts vulnerable people at risk of irreversible harm. That duty brings us to Bill C-41 with respect to medical assistance in dying, and to a straightforward request to split the bill, pass the permanent exclusion where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition and give the issue of advance requests the separate scrutiny that it deserves.

On October 7, the Liberals voted against Bill C-218. Introduced by my colleague, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, that bill would have permanently prevented MAID eligibility where a person's sole underlying medical condition was a mental illness. Twenty days later, the government has now introduced Bill C-41 with provisions to maintain that exclusion, but attached them to a separate proposal on advance requests. They have deliberately turned this into a moral paradox. The Liberals rejected the Conservative solution, then returned with the protection we had sought tied to a much broader change in the law, a change that would expand the availability of MAID. The first part of this bill is necessary because we cannot ensure that someone suffering from a mental illness is competent to make a final and binding decision to engage in MAID. This bill then goes on in the second part to do just that and enable MAID when a person is unable to give competent consent or competent refusal by design. The Liberals owe Canadians an explanation. If we agree that people whose sole underlying condition is mental illness must be protected, why make that protection dependent on settling a separate debate?

Conservatives are united on the way forward. Let us split the legislation. We are prepared to work with the government to pass the mental illness provisions through all stages of this House without delay and send them to the upper house. The current exclusion expires on March 17, 2027. Unless Parliament acts, the scheduled expansion will take effect. The Liberals have already delayed the expansion of MAID for mental illness more than once, which is exactly why they should not rush a separate and complex change through Parliament at the same time. They are going to make the same mistakes. There is no corresponding federal deadline requiring Parliament to authorize advance requests. The government should not use the deadline on the issue of mental illness to rush a different and complex change through this House.

The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying recommended that people whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness be excluded indefinitely. Our proposal would have provided a lasting protection without another expiry date. The committee heard warnings about two fundamental problems that remain unresolved. First, doctors and nurse practitioners warned that they cannot reliably determine when there is no possible recovery from a mental illness. Put plainly, they cannot reliably predict that a person will never improve. Severe, prolonged suffering does not itself settle that question. Second, witnesses warned that clinicians cannot reliably distinguish a request for MAID from a desire for suicide in this context. There are different clinical views on these questions. When the consequence of an error is death, Parliament must take those warnings seriously. A person whose condition could have improved with treatment must never lose that chance because the law moved ahead of the evidence.

The committee also heard serious concerns about whether existing safeguards and oversight are working in practice. Before Parliament extends the law further, Canadians deserve answers about how those protections are enforced and what happens when they fail. Bill C-41 acknowledges significant unresolved concerns about the safe provision of MAID on the basis of mental illness. Ministers should act on that acknowledgement and work with us to put this protection into law, now. People living with mental illness deserve to have their suffering taken seriously. They deserve care that is available when they need it and a country that remains committed to their recovery.

I recognize that this debate raises questions about autonomy and equality. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has raised those concerns about the exclusion. Those arguments deserve a serious response. Section 7 of the charter protects life, liberty and security of the person. Section 15 guarantees legal equality, including protection against discrimination. Parliament must consider all of those rights. Protecting people from the irreversible consequences of a mistaken assessment is a legitimate and necessary responsibility of government. We can respect the dignity of people living with mental illness while insisting that the law protect their chance to recover.

The second part of Bill C-41 raises a very different question. Herein is the paradox. It would permit an adult to make an advance request after a diagnosis of a serious incurable illness expected to permanently take away their capacity to consent. This is important on the “expected” part, which I will get to in a moment. By the time MAID was administered, that person would no longer be able to give informed consent to the procedure. Families facing dementia and other devastating conditions deserve a careful hearing, and so do people who fear that a past request could be acted on in circumstances that they never understood or anticipated.

The bill contains safeguards, including two independent assessments and rules about refusal and resistance. Parliament must examine whether those rules can reliably protect someone who is no longer lucid. A clear refusal would prevent MAID under that request. Where a practitioner is unsure whether a reaction means refusal or resistance, the bill would require a pause of at least 30 clear days.

The legislation proposed already anticipates uncertainty in the practitioner. How would that uncertainty be resolved after the waiting period? Who would review the decision? How would the conditions distinguish an involuntary reaction from a person trying to resist? More importantly, the real question here is can the practitioner understand what a person is trying to communicate at the last moment? I submit this is the crux of the problem. It is not so much whether the patient is able to communicate. Is the practitioner equipped to understand what they are communicating?

We have all heard examples of locked-in syndrome, where there is complete consciousness and lucidity, but the inability to move or communicate. How would suffering be assessed when a person cannot really describe it? What would happen when a request is many years old and the treatment circumstances or preferences have changed?

These questions concern the moment when someone is least able to speak for themselves. They require evidence, clear legal rules and enforceable accountability. When ambiguity exists, we must err on the side of caution and prevent advance requests.

The advance request provisions would also depend on provincial legislation. Alberta and other provinces must be heard on their responsibilities, on the safeguards they would administer and on how the federal framework would operate in practice.

Doctors, legal experts, families, veterans and people living with disabilities must have a meaningful opportunity to testify. Members of Parliament should be able to assess the proposal to allow MAID by advance request on its own merits, separately from the urgent mental illness protection.

As Remembrance Day approaches, we should reflect on our particular responsibility to veterans. Veterans Affairs' own investigation confirmed four incidents in which a single employee inappropriately raised MAID with veterans. That was shameful. It was a shameful failure toward people who served our country. The government must ensure it never happens again.

Veterans living with trauma, chronic pain or physical injuries deserve timely treatment and comprehensive support. When a veteran needs help, Canada's response must demonstrate that their life and service matter.

That responsibility extends to every vulnerable Canadian. People must have meaningful access to health care, mental health support services, disability supports and palliative care. If someone feels MAID is their only realistic option because adequate care is unavailable, Parliament has a duty to confront that failure. A list of services on paper means little to a person who cannot actually get them.

We have common ground before us. The government now proposes to prevent the expansion of MAID for mental illness. Conservatives are ready to pass that protection immediately. Members of the House may reach different conclusions about advance requests after hearing the evidence. The government should give them the opportunity to consider that question separately with the care it demands.

The Liberals keep asking for co-operation. The Minister of Justice can put aside petty politics and work with us today. Separate the two measures. Let us pass the protection on which we agree. Parliament can examine the rest. Canadians living with mental illness should not have to watch their protection evaporate.

Conservatives will continue to fight to ensure vulnerable Canadians are met with help to live, not a pathway to state-facilitated death. Split the bill, pass the exclusion and give advance requests to the study they need.