Bill C-41 · 45th Parliament · Mark Carney
Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying) and to make related amendments to other Acts
Government bill, sponsored by Sean Fraser (Minister of Justice). Still before Parliament.
- IntroducedOct. 27, 2026
- Debated in principleNot reached
- Studied by a committeeNot reached
- Passed its first chamberNot reached
- Passed the second chamberNot reached
- Became lawNot reached
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Mark CarneyPrime Minister
- Sean FraserMinister of Justice
- Patricia LattanzioParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
Only laws are compared, introduced against passed.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill sets many black-and-white rules such as age 18, 30 clear days, and specific eligibility criteria for advance requests. It still leaves room for argument over subjective medical judgments and provincial rules.
Open to argument
“experiencing enduring and intolerable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be relieved through reasonable means”
Uses subjective standards open to differing medical opinions.“reasonably expected to lead to an irreversible loss”
Relies on a forward-looking judgment rather than a fixed test.“in doubt as to whether the person’s words, sounds or gestures constitute a demonstration of refusal or resistance”
Leaves the threshold for doubt to the practitioner’s assessment.
Clear-cut
“at least 30 clear days between the day on which the words, sounds or gestures were observed”
Fixes a clear numerical waiting period.“the person was at least 18 years of age and capable of making decisions”
States an objective age and capacity requirement.“liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years”
Sets a definite maximum penalty for knowing non-compliance.
Discretion. Provinces decide the details of repositories and rules for making, storing, withdrawing and amending advance requests, while federal text only requires that such a regime exist.
Challenging the law itself. Sections 7 and 15 of the Charter could be invoked against the advance-request framework and the mental-illness exclusion, but the detailed criteria and safeguards make success uncertain.
Disputing a charge under it. A practitioner could dispute whether they formed the required opinions or whether refusal was shown, but the 30-day rule and written second-opinion requirement limit the scope for argument.
Read by a language model from the as introduced text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
Only laws in force for two years or more are checked.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.