MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’

Added: 2026-05-28

[00:00:00]If a member of the public is having that conversation, there's a position of authority or trust and the person is not seeking information about uh about facilitated death and the person proactively says, "Well, instead of this help you're seeking, how about you try uh death instead?" At at no point along the way has the government, the elected government, asked the question, has this gone too far? They're they're always asking the question, how can we go further?

[00:00:33]I'm Willie Tam for the Western Standard here in Ottawa on Parliament Hill to speak with member of Parliament Garnett Genius on his private members bill C260 the care not coercion act which would criminalize federal government bureaucrats from speaking to patients without their solicitation on maid maid also known as government funded or publicly funded euthanasia has expanded since its introduced few years ago under the Trudeau regime and today we're going to be speaking to him on a number of issues related to his private members bill and made overall. Here's what he had to say.

[00:01:04]>> Thank you for your time today.

[00:01:05]>> My pleasure. Great to be here.

[00:01:06]>> So, what's specifically with your care not coercion bill change in the law?

[00:01:11]>> So, my bill introduces a new criminal offense uh that says a person cannot raise maid with uh a member of the public under certain very specific conditions. It is to prevent specifically bureaucrats, people in positions of authority um from raising euthanasia or facilitated death uh with those who are not seeking information about it. So if a veteran calls Veterans Affairs Canada, it could be a conversation with CRA, with a parole officer, with social worker. Um, if a member of the public is having that conversation, there's a position of authority or trust and the person is not seeking information about uh about facilitated death and the person proactively says, "Well, instead of this help you're seeking, how about you try uh death instead, uh, that would not be allowed as a result of this bill." And it responds to cases where this has happened. It does not apply to doctors and nurses. It doesn't apply in a case where the patient has asked for information about something. Uh it only applies if those conditions are met.

[00:02:14]Position of authority or trust. Um not a doctor or nurse and uh the patient has not asked for information about it. Um, I think in principle everybody should actually be able to agree that that these that these instances of of aid coercion involving people that are for the most part outside of the medical system, uh, involving misuse of that position of trust. Most people would, I think, agree that that shouldn't happen. And yet, it continues to happen. and we continue to hear stories and it um it impacts people who are seeking public services that they're entitled to that feel these pre this pressure in those contexts.

[00:02:51]>> Why dial it back though in terms of exempting nurses and doctors if the patient itself is not requesting that service?

[00:02:58]>> Yeah, that's that's a great question. Um simple answer. Uh I am doing the math in this parliament. I'm looking at u the fact that it's a liberal majority government right now. Unfortunately, not a majority that they vote people voted for incidentally. But I have to look at parliament as it is. I have to look at the reality that um my own views are not necessarily shared by a majority in parliament. Um so yeah, in an ideal world, I would like to establish the principle that uh facilitated death is never brought up um by anyone other than the person themselves. Um, I will say the conduct of doctors and nurses can be regulated through provincial colleges.

[00:03:42]So, we've seen action in Alberta, Bill 18. Um, Bill 18 is a is a is an excellent bill and it includes uh those kinds of restrictions on the conduct of doctors and nurses. So, the the exemption does not come from sort of a a determination of the ideal. It's just um it's just my practical assessment of what is most likely to pass in this parliament. And you think you'll have liberal support on that?

[00:04:05]>> Uh I think we have written a bill that has the best chance of passing in this parliament while still moving in a positive direction. That's what you always try to do, right? You don't you don't want to >> you don't want to have a bill that does nothing. And you don't want to have a bill that in the process of trying to do anything uh trying to do everything can't succeed. You want to find something in the middle that still moves pushes the envelope um but has a has a good chance of success. I don't I'm not I'm not certain that the government will support it, mind you. Uh the initial indications uh at the first hour of debate were a little bit more negative from the government, which is why I think it's very important for people to contact their MPs. Um and and look, if we are able to pass the bill at second reading, it goes to committee for further study. That provides a venue for people that have been affected by this kind of coercion to speak and make their case. And probably many of those people will make the case for even further strengthening the bill and removing some of these exceptions. But it will be up to those people to make that case and up to the committee to decide at that point. Uh the first step is second reading where we vote on the bill in principle. And uh there's a lot of room to negotiate over specific provisions after that. But we have to get it passed at that at that vote at second reading before it goes to the the um the kind of further study and and working out the wording stage at committee. What's up with the timing then? So, you have a March 2027 deadline for the expansion of Maid.

[00:05:29]>> Uh, of course, it's a program that's been around years long and it's expanded ever since. What's what's the timing behind or the strategy in terms of why you're bringing this bill now?

[00:05:39]>> Yeah. So, we have two bills before Parliament that deal with facilitated death in different ways. So, one is Tamara Jansen's bill C218 and uh that's a great bill. It's an excellent bill. I'm strongly supportive of it and that really reflects what has been a multi-year conversation going on about this issue of um facilitated death for mental illness. And the timeline on that one is critical because right now the way the legislation works in March uh provisions prohibiting uh uh facilitated death in the case of mental illness would automatically sunset which means it's a very strange legislative mechanism that was put in the bill previously but essentially you'd have the automatic legalization of maid in the case of mental illness uh in March unless there's some legislative action.

[00:06:30]So Tamara's bill C218 tries to address that and that bill um again is the continuation of a long-running conversation. It was tabled first and it will probably be dealt with first. My bill is about introducing uh a new concept in the in into the conversation around recognizing and combating coercion in the case of um in the case of facilitated death. So uh they both relate to facilitated death but they are different concepts. uh and um and of of course they're related in the sense that I mean imagine the toxic combination of having coercion and uh uh facilitated death based on mental illness where someone who uh is facing a mental illness seeking public services would have a person in a position of authority suggesting out of the blue uh facilitated death. That kind of a suggestion would really negatively impact someone dealing with with mental health challenges likely. So, we have these two separate bills. Um, Tamara's bill um will likely move forward first and my bill will um will will will follow at some point. Timelines are not exactly certain. Uh but that's kind of the way we expect it to unfold.

[00:07:40]>> Well, we can talk about Tamara's bill later on um in terms of the mental health expansion, but >> I want to revisit the notion of the Liberal government's stance on on these matters because as you know, you're in a minority position. you need Liberal MPs to step up and vote if you want to get anything passed. And >> uh looking back just about a week and a half ago, um one of your colleagues from Alberta, Arnold Ferson, was at the National March uh >> for life rally and he he spoke in good detail about his belief that the Liberal government is promoting a quote culture of death. Um, of course that he's referring to the issue of abortion and another other range of social issues along with maid as well. Specifically referring to maid as perhaps a guiding light of something that even surprised them. So do you share that view?

[00:08:30]>> Look, I I I'm I'm with the Conservative Party. I think our what we're offering is on on every front on economic issues as well as on on cultural issues and on protecting human dignity is much superior to what the the Liberals offer.

[00:08:44]Um I think uh the legacy of the Trudeau government and and the continuing legacy of the Carney government uh on issues of of u facilitated death for example is is is very very bad. Um I'm uh I'm also doing my best to be uh constructive in the context of this parliament and um and and all members of our party are trying to do that trying to say okay even in the midst of large areas of disagreement. Can we find areas where where some common ground is possible? Um I didn't I didn't put everything that I believe about facilitated death into one bill. I tried to put forward a bill that would get some support >> within the Liberal caucus. Now, we'll see if it does. I don't know. Um I would I would rather we were in a situation where we had a conservative government.

[00:09:40]I think we could we could uh um get more done for Canadians on a on a broad spectrum of things. Um, but I think I think it's possible to say both that the legacy of the government on these issues has been very negative and also to say we're going to try to do the best we can in the context where we are.

[00:10:00]>> Is there anything or a bill or anything perhaps that can come out from a future amendment or a future bill on its own?

[00:10:06]Uh, we just discussed off camera briefly. The National Post reported a case where a doctor uh James Mlan offered uh and and evaluated someone for for maid um and its importance location.

[00:10:19]So um of course that's offsite from the medical traditional medical environment.

[00:10:24]>> Uh anything are you looking towards in terms you know addressing in terms of the >> environment of where that >> process happens not just the person involved but the environment itself?

[00:10:34]Yeah, it's a good question and I think let's just put it in the context of the larger issue of the assessment that's supposed to happen. Um because when facilitated death was legalized and I I've been in province since 2015, so I've been here all the way through the process. Um the framework they established was any two doctors signing off constitutes approval. There was no consideration of kind of the nature of the examination that the doctors had to undertake to come to those conclusions or how many doctors could assess them before you found two who agreed because there's a big difference between you know person met with one doctor the doctor agreed they met the criteria then they met with another doctor and that doctor agreed they met the criteria.

[00:11:19]There's a big difference between that and someone who consults dozens of doctors all of whom says no and then they find two uh more two people representative of much more fringe opinion who agree to sign off because there's a spectrum of opinion within the medical profession. There are a small number of people who have a real kind of extreme activist mentality on this. So if you have cases of people from out of province or people who aren't even examining a patient, uh checking off that that someone's met the criteria, I I don't think that is really consistent with what a lot of people would would expect, which is that you have kind of an objective evaluation. So frameworks were proposed at the time where you might have um uh kind of a a you might have a sort of quasi um a quasi legal assessment process where an individual or a panel would review the case and that they would provide a feedback that you you couldn't just alter by shopping around to other individuals. I think before between the the Carter decisions uh coming into effect and the passage of legislation, Manitoba had an interim framework that that involved this kind of a process. So there's different processes we could have done. The process we have now allows a kind of doctor shopping to take place um which can include um can include anything just two doctors signing off. Uh so this is where you get um and I don't I don't know the specifics of that case yet. It's it's just come out at the time we're we're recording. But uh if the implication is that there's there's a kind of a public place, people sitting down over coffee and then that's supposed to qualif satisfy the qualification. I mean that that seems very bizarre to me. But it but it's the the the most important reforms we need to look at aren't so much about the place where it's taking place. It's about the fact that you can go to two dozen assessors who say no and then find a couple more who say yes and then it's not majority opinion. It's just the fact that you found two people who would sign off.

[00:13:21]>> So would you agree with the premise then that made has expanded faster than it safeguards?

[00:13:28]>> Well, I I think that there were so many things about the framework that was that were deeply flawed uh from the beginning. Uh there's two different uh predominant attributes of any uh system of facilitated death. One is uh the eligibility criteria, who's allowed to get it and for what reason. And then the second is what the um structures of approval or assessment are. And I think the biggest issue in Canada is that we have no effective or meaningful processes for verifying that the intention of legislators is actually present in the system. So I mean even on the mental health uh issue. So, uh there have been um there have been lots of cases where um maybe there's a mental health issue as a contributing factor, but somebody is determined to be um potentially facing imminent death as a result of of various factors and therefore they're put into track one. You have what they call track jumping where someone is in track two. uh that is that they're not considered terminal, but then um but then they're moved over to another track for reasons that seem arbitrary. But the the the question is then what is the enforcement mechanism? What's the oversight mechanism? And nobody's ever been charged in this country for abuses related to facilitated death. Uh, so if you have a spectrum of opinion, but you've got some people with very extreme ideas that are pushing the envelope in terms of of what of what the intent of the legislation was or wasn't, and you have no meaningful mechanisms for enforcement and holding people accountable. I think that's a that's a huge problem. So, um, what I and I basically gave this speech at the time back in 2015. And I said that like we need we need to have mechanisms to ensure that what is supposed to happen or is not supposed to happen under this legislation is actually happening. Uh and um and we're we're way off base from that. So I think there are a lot of issues that needs need to be addressed within the system.

[00:15:40]I'm tackling one with bill C260 care not coercion act. Uh that is the the made coercion piece. I should mention care not coercion.ca is our website. So I'm trying to tackle the coercion piece.

[00:15:52]There's the mental health piece. Um I think there's also questions around what the oversight and review mechanisms are as well.

[00:15:59]>> Let's talk about the guiding light that brought you through this car not quion bill or perhaps one of the examples that you've also mentioned the famous veteran affairs case. Can you give us some professionals on details of that case in terms of your view and do you believe that it was an isolated incident or what you sense is out there that we don't know today?

[00:16:18]>> Well, sure. I want to give um uh give real kudos to Blake Richards who's uh been our veterans affairs shadow minister for a long time. Uh and um uh he's a member of parliament from um the Erdri Foothills area with um just an incredible amount of um of compassion and goodwill. Um he's works with veterans, he works with families dealing with loss and and on some of these other really important um important issues. Um so in terms of his work on veterans uh it was through uh his investigation and the work of the Veterans Affairs Committee uh that it's come out that there are many many cases where a person has called Veterans Affairs Canada asking for assistance um things they're entitled to. In one case, it was a home stairlift. Um, and they've had the person on the other end of the line has suggested um facilitated death instead.

[00:17:15]Uh, in in in one case there's a a gentleman was asking for help with stuff in his house and um and he was offered maid and initially he he didn't know what that was. He thought they were offering him a a maid, someone to actually help clean his house. Um so if you get the the bizarre sort of pseudo pseudo language that that is invented here that but anyways um the um there have been many of these cases and the position of the government has been that this shouldn't happen and that it was one case worker um and but but the further work and investigation of of the Veterans Affairs Committee just makes that explanation harder and harder to believe. There are many veterans in different parts of the country um men and women uh who have reported conversations of this nature. Uh case workers as I understand the system are usually uh assigned uh based on region and uh you have a a case worker of the same of the same gender. So, uh, the diversity of people who have testified to this happening certainly suggests that there are broader systematic issues. But what I've said about my bill C260 is that, um, look, even if you think it's not very many cases, what I'm hearing for veterans is that it's actually a lot of cases. But even if you even if you think it's not very many cases, just pass the bill then. Like the the bill the bill doesn't uh the bill is agnostic on the number of cases. It just tries to prevent any instances of um of coercion related to facilitated death.

[00:18:50]>> So let's talk about the nature of MA and how it's seen in Canada and even frankly outside of Canada as I mean if you if you look at uh even some media on an international level whether it be media focused on social issues or just international media overall BBC has covered the fact that uh you know maybe is a leading cause cause of debt in Canada and uh um overall >> you know there's a lot of questions in terms of why that is.

[00:19:16]>> Yeah. Um what do you think is in a nuance sense? What do you think is drive besides of course the expanded eligibility the you know the inauguration of the program in frankly more recent history um what is the drivers like why are so many people opting for maid?

[00:19:36]>> Yeah I mean the the information uh we have uh indicates that numbers are are continuously going up in this country.

[00:19:46]Um further you mentioned the international context uh Canada's become a real cautionary tale in international debate. Uh certainly if you talk to politicians across the spectrum um on the on the right and on the left in other countries uh generally there's a lot of a lot of shock about what has what exists now in Canada and um various international disability rights um bodies have really highlighted Canada's failure to uphold the rights of people with disabilities in light of the facilitated death uh system in particular track two. Um, it's sad to see what's what's been happening. The the lack of protections, the the the lack of of um affirmation of the dignity of all people, the the challenges people with disabilities are facing, even trying to access public services uh and uh and having um and having death posed to them instead. So, these are all issues we need to address at a at a policy level.

[00:20:45]Um I I mean I think there are are other kind of social challenges that may be contributing to these numbers. Um I um I'm a a big believer in the ideas of Victor Frankle, the importance of meaning uh to human well-being and uh I think um I think having a society that affirms the universal dignity of the human person and the meaning of human life even in the midst of suffering. um is very important and and uh and is sometimes lacking. Um we should not um um we should not allow ourselves to become bentamites and believing that life is just about pleasure over pain.

[00:21:34]Uh the essence of of um of human life is about meaning and purpose. Um and it is possible um uh it is very common for people to have meaningful lives in the midst of suffering. Um, so I don't know that we always do a good job of conveying that message. Um, >> by we mean the government.

[00:21:56]>> I I I mean I mean uh there there often is this message from elite institutions that human dignity is negotiable or it's dependent on experience. Whereas I believe that human dignity is is inherent in the human person. Uh that human life has dignity, has meaning, has value. Um and that that people who are in the midst of suffering can um can identify and find immense meaning in their lives in their ability to contribute to others and the community around them in in constructive ways. Um so uh I I I think the discourse around meaning uh could be could be developed and enhanced in ways that would um would provide solace to people who are navigating points of suffering in their life. Um, so I think there's there's a few different elements of it, but but look, the the biggest problem with the facilitated death system is um is that we um at at no point along the way has the government, the elected government, asked the question, has this gone too far? They're they're always asking the question, how can we go further? And the the baffling thing to me about this is is like that. That's always the direction of of questioning instead of saying like their question is always is there one case of a person who um who maybe should have been able to die who wasn't instead of asking the question what are we going to do about these many cases of people that were pressured to die or or or told directly or indirectly that their life wasn't valuable when what they wanted was actually to be able to continue. and what they needed to hear was an affirmation of their human dignity.

[00:23:43]>> Do you think besides there being drivers that have to do with social and economic factors, now we get this data annually in terms of how many people are opting into maid and successfully received the service?

[00:23:56]Is there anything telling about that number besides the fact that it's increasing? Is is this a question of you know our healthc care coverage, our economic status, our I mean is it almost kind of a report card mechanism that if maid is up and up and up then certain inclinations are incurring society on a parallel basis.

[00:24:18]>> Well, I I think it it raises lots of questions. Um I think I mean you you you've alluded to this. There have been cases where people who have been seeking other kinds of help and support have um have pursued or been pressured to pursue because of their inability to access other kinds of services and supports. Um I think uh you know I I think there are there are a lot of different factors that can be contributing to that number. Um we but like like my my bill is in a way narrower than that. It it's just trying to say that those who are not seeking facilitated death shouldn't have somebody in a position of authority uh proposing it to them. Um I think that's something at least we should all be able to to agree on. Um the the the number the number could suggest a lot of different things, but um but at a fundamental level if we at least could agree in this parliament uh that people should be able to access unrelated public services without pressure uh I think that would go a long way for those people in that situation.

[00:25:33]>> Imagine that in April of last year your party won the election. you formed a government either yourself or a colleague is the minister of health and control the other responsible ministries where would you guys draw the line on made I mean in terms of protecting the vulnerable but also respecting freedom and civil liberties what would be your program >> well our our party uh has always had and will always have free votes on these kinds of issues of conscience so um I think there would be a wide consensus around some of the problems. Uh there would be some aspects of the system that um there would be differences of opinion within our party and I I don't I don't think there's anything >> is that like an east west divide in terms of the >> I think I think there's I think there's there's there's there's wide variation.

[00:26:23]I mean, you can I I can't remember off offhand, but if you look back over the votes we've had on these issues, um there's been diversity of opinion um reflected not not not just in sort of blocks like people from here think this.

[00:26:37]No, it hasn't. Um you can maybe say in certain cases there are trends, but um but there's been there's been diversity of of perspective on the issue. Now also uh I think perspectives will reflect emerging um emerging evidence and we've seen emerging evidence of some of the significant problems. Um so you know I think what what would what would happen in the case of a conservative government? I mean, I think you can see areas where there is consensus and areas where there's maybe a diversity of perspective and um and and I think that would then be reflective in votes that would would be taken on the issue. Um but a parliament with a different configuration obviously would have a much stronger chance of passing um of passing reforms that would provide more protection for vulnerable people.

[00:27:32]>> Well, that's all my questions. Thank you for the time.

[00:27:34]>> Well, thank you. Thanks for coming in.

[00:27:36]Well, there you have it, folks. If you enjoyed, give a like, follow, share, and if you enjoy our kind of work, subscribe for only $10 a month. And remember to use the code fearless for 40% off.