MAID committee report recommends not expanding to mental illness as Senator Wells says review was ‘flawed,’ while Liberal Powlowski says all rules were followed ‘steadfastly’

A group of dissenting Senators are calling on the federal government to send the question of whether Canada should expand medical assistance in dying to those with mental disorders to the Supreme Court, with PSG Senator Kristopher Wells calling a recent joint parliamentary study on the matter a “flawed and biased process.” But Liberal MP Marcus Powlowski, who co-chaired the committee charged with the study, said it “steadfastly” followed all of the rules. 

The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying responsible for studying the eligibility of mental illness as the sole condition for MAID tabled their much-anticipated report on June 17. It had one recommendation: “That the Government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to indefinitely exclude persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness from eligibility for medical assistance in dying.”

The committee’s report comes approximately nine months before a sunset clause excluding MAID specifically for mental illness is due to expire in March 2027. Canada currently allows MAID when someone’s death is considered reasonably foreseeable and in cases where someone has a grievous and irremediable condition. 

But in a show of the issue's complexity, various committee members wrote dissenting reports or, in some cases, supplementary reports explaining why they agree with the majority report. 

Committee members Wells (Alberta), Independent Senator Rosemary Moodie (Ontario), and CSG Senator Pamela Wallin (Saskatchewan) wrote a dissenting opinion, as did Bloc Québécois MP Luc Thériault (Montcalm, Que.). Both opinions recommended that the federal government turn to the Supreme Court for a legal analysis of the issue. 

Conservative MPs and committee members Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City, B.C.), Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Sturgeon River, Alta.), Andrew Lawton (Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Ont.), and Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, B.C.), as well as Conservative Senator Yonah Martin (British Columbia), wrote a supplementary report calling on the federal government to “permanently exclude mental illness as a sole underlying condition for MAID.”

Independent Senator Pierre Dalphond (De Lorimier, Que.), a former judge, in his own supplementary report wrote that he agrees with the recommendation of the majority report, but he also “believe[s] it would be unconstitutional to prohibit MAID” for those with an irreversible mental disorder who are “capable of giving free and informed consent.” 

He states through the report that a current Ontario Superior Court challenge from Claire Elyse Brosseau who is seeking MAID for the sole reason of mental illness “will allow for a rigorous assessment of the factual evidence and expert opinions,” which he wrote cannot be conducted by a parliamentary committee.

Wells told The Hill Times that he feels the majority report’s recommendation calling for the indefinite exclusion of MAID for mental illness “has no credibility” considering the absence of testimony from some witnesses such as the Canadian Psychiatric Association (CPA) and those with lived experience who support and are seeking MAID, such as Brosseau.  

“How do you not invite the organization that was charged by the government to develop the guidelines for medical assistance in dying when the sole underlying condition is mental illness?” Wells said, referring to the CPA. 

The majority report states that the CPA in March 2026 produced a document entitled, Canadian Guidance on Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID): Evaluating the “Grievous and Irremediable” Eligibility Criterion in Persons with Mental Disorders who Request MAID and Managing Suicide Risk during the Process for All MAID Eligibility Requests. 

As for why the CPA was not invited to speak to the committee, Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Ont.) said he has spoken to past and present leadership of the organization, and “I did not get the feeling that they wanted to wade into this debate. I could be totally wrong.” 

The Hill Times asked the CPA whether it wanted to speak to the committee, and whether it has a position on MAID specifically for mental illness. Hélène Côté, policy and public affairs manager at the CPA, said in an email on June 19 that it was interested and offered to speak to the committee. She added the CPA "does not have an official position on MAID where mental disorder is the sole condition," but has a position statement on "MAID in general."

The position statement outlines principles that psychiatrists must adhere in situations where the issue of MAID is raised.

The CPA did not submit a brief to the committee for its current study. 

Wells said he knows the CPA has sent letters to the committee “to correct misinformation” that was being shared by other witnesses. 

The witness list predominantly consisted of those opposed to expanding MAID. A count conducted by The Hill Times found that of the 36 individuals or groups who have a distinct opinion on whether MAID should be expanded, 10 advocated moving forward, or at least said Canada was ready. Twenty-six were opposed. (The committee has in fact heard from more than 36 witnesses, but The Hill Times is only highlighting those who presented very clear opinions on the subject.) 

The number of witnesses allocated to each segment of the committee—seven Liberal MPs, four Conservative MPs, one Bloc Québécois MP, and five Senators—was proportional to their representation. This allowed Senators to propose just under one-third of the witness list. Senator Martin, who co-chaired the committee with Powlowski, is opposed to expansion. 

In conversations with The Hill Times, Wells and Powlowski disagreed over the committee's responsibility to ensure balanced representation of witnesses. 

A committee “doesn’t work proportionally for witness selection. [The] job of the co-chairs is to ensure that there is a fair and balanced process,” Wells said. 

Powlowski said, “Perhaps there isn't an equal number of people on both sides of this issue. The main thing is we followed the rules dutifully, and there is absolutely no rule or no requirement that the chairs try to selectively choose people to give an equal representation of both sides of an issue.” 

He added a letter was sent to the committee from 16 of 18 chairs of psychiatry in medical schools who are opposed to the expansion, and “we heard from a lot of provinces” who also oppose it. 

Powlowski also said that he “reject[s]” Wells’ characterization of the committee as having conducted a flawed process. 

Wells referred to the committee process to explain why the Supreme Court should consider the issue: “We really want to take the partisan politics out of this issue.”

As for his own perspective on MAID, Wells said he feels that an expanded system should move forward. The issue for him comes down to whether people have “the choice … and the bodily autonomy to make decisions about their lives.” 

He said his inbox is full of messages from people who support an expanded MAID and “are furious with the government, and who’ve talked about having no other choice but to end their own lives because the government won't allow them a dignified death.” 

Powlowski argued the decision should remain in the hands of those who are democratically elected. 

Saying it’s likely the issue will end up in the courts regardless, Powlowski added, “I think we are the appropriate body to be making this decision. It involves some pretty significant moral questions in balancing competing interests. I think that's better made by the elected parliamentarians than it is by the unelected courts. … We are held accountable [to voters].”

Powlowski wrote his own supplementary report, in which he agreed with the majority opinion that MAID for mental illness should not go ahead next year. He said he wrote the report because he knew he would be called upon to explain his reasons for his position.

In speaking with The Hill Times, Powlowski cited multiple reasons for not supporting an expanded MAID, including clinical issues such as whether anyone can say with certainty that mental illness is irremediable—a requirement under the current law that allows for MAID for physical illnesses—and his own uncertainty on whether a distinction can be made between “suicidal thoughts [versus] a rational decision by someone with mental illness to end their lives.” 

He also pointed to the “appropriateness of offering MAID for mental illness when we can't provide adequate mental health services.” 

In a majority report that continually cites contradictory evidence from witnesses on whether issues like irremediability can be determined and whether there is adequate regulatory oversight, the section on “mental health system capacity” is where there is the most consensus. Multiple witnesses told the committee that the level of access to mental health professionals is not enough compared to the need for this care. 

Powlowski isn't shutting the door to MAID to mental illness, saying in his own report that the government could review the issue in the future should some of the problems he currently sees, such as confusion around irremediability and concerns about inadequate regulatory oversight, be resolved. 

tsanci@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

Editor's Note: This article was updated on June 19 to include a statement from the Canadian Psychiatric Association.