Preventing Coercion of Persons Not Seeking Medical Assistance in Dying Act

Summary#

• This bill would change Canada’s Criminal Code to add a new crime about medical assistance in dying (MAID). MAID means a legal process where a doctor or nurse helps end a person’s life at their request.

• The bill’s goal is to stop people in government roles from bringing up MAID to someone who did not ask about it.

• Key changes:

  • Makes it a criminal offence for a federal or provincial government officer or employee to start a conversation about MAID with a person who did not ask about it.
  • Applies only when the government worker is in a position of trust or authority toward that person.
  • Does not apply to medical practitioners or registered nurses (including nurse practitioners). They can still discuss MAID as allowed by existing law.
  • The government worker must know the person did not specifically ask for that discussion.
  • The offence is punishable on summary conviction (a less serious criminal charge).

What it means for you#

• Patients and families

  • Government staff (like some caseworkers) could not raise MAID with you unless you ask first.
  • You can still ask about MAID at any time and talk to your doctor or nurse about it.
  • This bill does not limit your right to seek information or to request MAID.

• Government employees (federal or provincial)

  • If you are in a position of trust or authority over a person, you must not bring up MAID unless they specifically ask you to.
  • If you do, you could face a criminal charge, which can lead to a criminal record.
  • Doctors and registered nurses are excluded from this ban, even if they work for government.

• Health care providers

  • Doctors and registered nurses (including nurse practitioners) can still discuss MAID under current rules.
  • You should ensure any MAID discussion follows existing safeguards and is patient-led.

• Community organizations and private employers

  • The new offence targets federal and provincial government officers and employees only.
  • Staff who are not government employees are not covered by this bill, though other professional or workplace rules may apply.

Expenses#

Estimated annual cost: No publicly available information.

• There is no published fiscal estimate. Any costs would likely relate to training, compliance, and enforcement, but no figures are available.

Proponents' View#

• Protects vulnerable people from feeling pressured or steered toward MAID by authority figures.
• Draws a clear legal line: only discuss MAID when the person asks, and keep these talks within a medical setting.
• Ensures non-clinical government staff do not suggest MAID, which supporters say has happened and should be prevented.
• Reduces the risk of subtle coercion by people who hold power over benefits, services, housing, or care.
• Does not block access to MAID, since patients can still raise it and talk with doctors or nurses.

Opponents' View#

• Could chill legitimate, compassionate conversations about end-of-life choices, making some workers afraid to share neutral information.
• May create confusion for social workers, case managers, or other government staff about what they can say, even when trying to help.
• Focuses on criminal penalties instead of training and oversight, which critics say would address problems without criminalizing speech.
• Leaves gaps and inconsistencies, since private-sector staff are not covered even if they hold similar influence.
• Terms like “position of trust or authority” and “initiate a discussion” may be unclear, risking uneven enforcement.
• Existing MAID safeguards already ban coercion and require informed consent; critics argue this bill is unnecessary.