Committee majority recommends against MAID for mental illness, four senators object

OTTAWA – A parliamentary committee is calling on the federal government to indefinitely exclude people with mental illness from becoming eligible for medical assistance in dying, after a process that some of the committee’s members decried as flawed and biased.

Conservative and Liberal members of Parliament on the committee co-signed that single recommendation in a report Wednesday that included a number of dissenting opinions.

People with a mental illness as their sole underlying condition are set to become eligible to apply for medical assistance in dying, or MAID, next March.

The committee of MPs and senators was tasked with studying whether the country is ready for that to happen.

Most of the 44 witnesses it heard from over the spring were opposed to the expansion of eligibility.

Many of them, including a number of psychiatrists, argued there is no consensus in the medical field on how to determine whether a patient has any prospect of getting better. A key condition for MAID eligibility is that a patient must be suffering from a grievous and irremediable medical condition.

“Moving forward with this expansion is reckless and dangerous,” said Conservative MP Tamara Jansen on Wednesday.

“The two core problems remain unresolved. Clinicians cannot reliably determine when a mental illness is irremediable, and they cannot reliably distinguish a request for MAID from suicidality in this context.”

This was the third special committee of Parliament struck to assess the eligibility of people with mental illness since 2021, when MAID eligibility was expanded to include people who were not at the end of their lives.

Both of the previous committees recommended more time to study and prepare for the exclusion to end.

Liberal MP and committee co-chair Marcus Powlowski said the recommendation of an indefinite pause does not mean people with mental illness should never become eligible for MAID.

“Certainly I think the government should and ought to be willing at some point in the future to reconsider this,” he said.

Four senators on the committee wrote a dissenting report urging the government to disregard its core recommendation, and instead refer the question to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Senators Rosemary Moodie, Pamela Wallin, Kristopher Wells and Flordeliz Osler wrote that the process was “fundamentally flawed, highly irregular, biased, and lacking the evidentiary rigour required to inform policy on such a consequential issue.”

Bloc Québécois MP Luc Thériault wrote a dissenting opinion of his own which also calls for a Supreme Court reference to clarify the 2015 decision that led to the legalization of MAID.

Thériault, who was a member of all three special committees, wrote that this latest version was “undoubtedly the worst exercise I’ve been a part of.”

Justice Minister Sean Fraser said earlier Wednesday that he would review the report and the testimony the committee heard before deciding how the government will respond.

“This isn’t easy work, which is why I’m going to take the time necessary to fully understand the recommendations of the committee and the evidence that underpins those recommendations,” he said.

Dying With Dignity Canada’s CEO Helen Long said in a statement that she’s disappointed by the report and hopes Fraser will seek out other opinions before making a decision.

“We hope he will also consider the expertise of the Canadian Psychiatric Association — who were not asked to testify — and those with lived experience who were largely excluded from the conversation,” Long wrote.

The advocacy group was among those that raised concerns about the committee process, saying it chose not to hear from people with mental disorders who wanted to speak about why they would seek a MAID assessment.

Dying With Dignity has filed a constitutional challenge that argues excluding people with only a mental illness from MAID eligibility — while allowing those who are suffering from a mental illness and a co-occurring physical ailment to be assessed — violates their Charter rights.

Sen. Pierre Dalphond, a former judge and member of the committee, wrote in his own response to the report that he believes it would be unconstitutional to prohibit MAID for everyone suffering from a severe and irreversible mental disorder, but he agreed with the indefinite exclusion while the courts hear the Dying With Dignity case.

Dalphond said the case “will allow for a rigorous assessment of the factual evidence and expert opinions, an exercise that cannot be carried out by a parliamentary committee or in the context of a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.”

Conservatives on the committee also called for stronger monitoring and public reporting of the existing MAID regime, along with national standards for oversight and training to ensure the current safeguards are effective.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 17, 2026.