(CCN) – Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe’s government is moving to block advance requests for medically-provided death, even as Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal government seeks to permit them under Bill C-41.
Saskatchewan’s Bill 73, The Medical Assistance in Dying Additional Safeguards Act, introduced Nov. 9 by Health Minister Jeremy Cockrill, would prohibit practitioners from providing medically-provided death (MAiD) to people who have lost the ability to consent.
The legislation specifically prohibits euthanasia if a person “lacks capacity immediately before receiving medical assistance in dying,” except in two circumstances already permitted under federal law. Neither exception covers the broader advance requests proposed by Ottawa.
Under the federal Bill C-41, Canadians diagnosed with incurable conditions that could eventually prevent them from making their own health-care decisions would be able to request medically-provided euthanasia in advance, but only in provinces that pass legislation permitting it.
Saskatchewan first announced its proposed safeguards in its Oct. 27 throne speech, the same day the federal government introduced Bill C-41.
The throne speech said the government had “heard from many Saskatchewan residents who believe there needs to be more safeguards placed on the use of MAID.”
Cockrill said the provincial legislation would establish “additional safeguards, particularly around young people, mental illness, and capacity.”
It would also prohibit medically-provided death for anyone under 18 and/or for those whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness, and would provide additional conscience protections for health-care workers who don’t want to participate in euthanasia.
Saskatchewan’s move comes as the federal government is advancing its own euthanasia legislation.
Bill C-41, the Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act, is now at second reading at the federal level, and would indefinitely exclude people whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness from receiving medically-provided death. Without legislative change, the mental illness exclusion is scheduled to expire March 17, 2027.
The federal government has twice postponed the expansion and referred the issue to a special parliamentary committee for study. In June 2026, the committee recommended indefinitely excluding mental illness as a sole underlying condition.
A year earlier, Conservative MP Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City) had introduced a private member’s bill to do just that. Bill C-218, The Right to Recover Act, introduced June 20, 2025, would have amended the Criminal Code to ensure that a mental disorder by itself did not qualify as a grievous and irremediable medical condition for euthanasia eligibility.
The bill was defeated Oct. 7, 2026, by a vote of 187 to 141, with most Liberals and the Bloc Québécois voting against it. Less than a month later, the Liberals introduced Bill C-41 to exclude mental illness as a sole factor qualifying for medically-provided death, but combined it with the introduction of advance requests.
Conservatives and other critics are crying foul over the twinning of the two measures, saying they should be considered separately.
In an interview with Canadian Catholic News before the parliamentary debate, Jansen said the mental illness provision and advance requests are different issues.
“It is incredibly disappointing that they would put these two together: one that has been very well debated, and then something that has not had an actual chance to be debated properly.”
Justice Minister Sean Fraser (Central Nova) has said he wants Bill C-41 to pass the House of Commons before the parliamentary sitting ends in December, allowing time for Senate debate before the March deadline when mental illness is scheduled to become a qualifying condition for medically-provided death.
Conservatives say they could have expedited passage of the mental illness provision alone in time for the March 2027 deadline.
“They could have done it in a separate bill, which is what we asked them to do at the time,” Jansen said.
Instead, critics argue, MPs are being pressured to accept advance requests to ensure that the mental illness exclusion passes before the deadline.
Conservative MP Andrew Lawton (Elgin—St. Thomas—London South) challenged the combination of the two measures in Parliament on Oct. 28, asking the Speaker to allow separate votes on them.
He said the measures are “fundamentally distinct from one another, with separate political, moral and legal implications, and for that matter, distinct levels of support and opposition among Canadians and, I suspect, Parliamentarians as well.”
Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia rejected Lawton’s request Nov. 3, acknowledging that Bill C-41 addresses more than one issue but ruling that they share the common element of access to MAiD. He added that MPs could still seek changes later in the parliamentary process.
On Nov. 4, Conservative House leader Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu’Appelle) held a press conference calling on the Liberals to divide the legislation. He said Conservatives would help fast-track the mental illness exclusion while allowing separate study of advance requests.
That day, debate continued into the midnight hours, with a succession of Conservatives, including Leader Pierre Poilievre (Battle River—Crowfoot), taking the floor to question the legislation.
Liberal MPs defended advance requests as a way of respecting patients’ wishes after they lose the ability to make decisions for themselves. They argued that the legislation contains safeguards against coercion and unwanted deaths, and that provinces would decide whether to authorize advance requests.
Opposition MPs questioned whether the safeguards would be sufficient.
Conservative MP Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan) pointed out that, according to the latest national MAiD report, 692 people had withdrawn their requests in a single year.
Under an advance-request system, he argued, if someone loses capacity or is not told before medically-provided euthanasia is administered, “then there is no opportunity for them to change their mind.”
Opposition to combining the two measures also came from MPs who support advance requests.
Luc Thériault of the Bloc Québécois, the MP for Montcalm, began his Nov. 4 speech by saying, “The bill before us today is really two bills in one.”
He argued that separate votes would have been appropriate because mental illness and advance requests raise different issues.
Two days later, on Nov. 6, Liberal Secretary of State Stephanie McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke) gave formal notice that the government intends to introduce a time-allocation motion to limit further second-reading debate.
Questions about the effectiveness of safeguards have also been raised by investigations into Canada’s existing MAiD system.
Canadian Catholic News reporter Terry O’Neill obtained internal B.C. Ministry of Health documents through a freedom-of-information request showing that the provincial oversight unit recorded 2,807 errors in 2024, with more than half of reported MAiD case outcomes requiring follow-up.
Among those were 353 cases involving compliance concerns that required additional education for practitioners and pharmacists about legal requirements and professional standards.
An earlier investigation found that B.C.’s oversight unit reviewed documentation rather than investigating misconduct or imposing disciplinary sanctions.
The reporting led to calls for an independent national watchdog empowered to investigate possible violations and intervene before a MAiD death occurs.
For Jansen, the effectiveness of safeguards is a central concern.
“Are the standards even working?” she asked. “This concept that all the provinces can have different standards makes very little sense.”
