An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)

How it changed on the way

36% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (3,523 words introduced, 3,670 passed). A committee amended it.

substantial changeintent mostly kept

The core change to remove the foreseeable-death requirement for MAiD eligibility was retained. Parliament added new data-collection rules on race and disability, an expert review on mental illness, and transitional provisions.

• Expanded data collection to include race, Indigenous identity and disability.

  Before: “(i) the information to be provided, at various stages, by medical practitioners or nurse practitioners and by pharmacists, or by a class of any of them, ...”

  After: “(i) the information to be provided, at various stages, by medical practitioners, nurse practitioners, persons referred to in subsection (1.1) who have the responsibility to carry out preliminary assessments, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, or by a class of any of them, including (A) the elements considered in the course of the assessments — preliminary or otherwise — of whether a person meets the criteria set out in subsection 241.2(1), (B) information respecting the race or indigenous identity of a person who requests or receives medical assistance in dying, if the person consents to providing this information, and (C) information — other than information that must be provided in relation to the assessment of eligibility to receive medical assistance in dying and the application of safeguards — respecting any disability , as defined in section 2 of the Accessible Canada Act , of a person who requests or receives medical assistance in dying, if the person consents to providing that information,”

• Added requirement for independent expert review of MAiD for mental illness.

  After: “Independent Review Expert review 3.1 (1) The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health must cause an independent review to be carried out by experts respecting recommended protocols, guidance and safeguards to apply to requests made for medical assistance in dying by persons who have a mental illness.”

• Added transitional rule for requests signed before royal assent.

  After: “Request made prior to assent 4 A medical practitioner or nurse practitioner who provides medical assistance in dying to a person who, before the day on which this Act receives royal assent, had signed and dated a written request for medical assistance in dying must provide it in accordance with section 241.2 of the Criminal Code as it read immediately before that day, other than paragraph 241.2(3)(g), and with subsections 241.2(3.2) to (3.5) of that Act, as enacted by this Act.”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill mixes objective numbers and defined exclusions with repeated subjective tests such as 'reasonably foreseeable' and 'in the opinion of' that require practitioner judgment. This leaves room for argument over eligibility and compliance in individual cases.

Open to argument

• “whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable, taking into account all of their medical circumstances, without a prognosis necessarily having been made as to the specific length of time that they have remaining”

  The foreseeability test is undefined and explicitly allows no fixed timeline, inviting prolonged disagreement over its application.

• “be of the opinion that the person meets all of the criteria set out in subsection (1)”

  Reliance on the practitioner's opinion introduces a subjective standard rather than an objective checklist.

• “any shorter period that the first medical practitioner or nurse practitioner considers appropriate in the circumstances”

  The word 'appropriate' delegates open-ended discretion to shorten the 90-day waiting period.

Clear-cut

• “ensure that there are at least 90 clear days between the day on which the first assessment under this subsection of whether the person meets the criteria set out in subsection (1) begins and the day on which medical assistance in dying is provided to them”

  A fixed calendar period supplies a clear, measurable threshold.

• “a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability”

  An explicit definitional exclusion removes ambiguity for one category of condition.

Discretion. Substantial discretion remains with medical and nurse practitioners to form opinions on foreseeability, capacity, suffering, and whether a shorter waiting period is appropriate, with only limited ministerial consultation required under section 241.31(6).

Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of undefined subjective standards such as 'reasonably foreseeable' and 'in the opinion of' engages section 7 Charter vagueness and overbreadth arguments.

Disputing a charge under it. An accused practitioner can readily dispute whether their opinion on foreseeability or appropriateness satisfied the statutory tests, given the absence of objective benchmarks.

Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.