Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Kitchen & Dining Tech Style & Beauty Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Amazon Prime Day Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNP CommentBen Woodfinden: The euthanize-the-mentally-ill crowd wants to override democracyThey can't convince the people, so they want the Supreme Court to force it insteadLast updated Jul 02, 2026 You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.The report tabled June 24by the special joint committee of senators and MPs contains a single 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.” Photo by Getty ImagesThis month the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying tabled its report on whether Canadians whose only medical condition is a mental illness should be eligible to be put to death by the state, and reached a single recommendation: don’t, indefinitely. The Globe and Mail’s André Picard was unimpressed. The committee, he wrote last week, shows the “can’t do” spirit of our legislators, and since the courts will settle it eventually, the minister should “get it over with” and refer it to the Supreme Court. Judges, he concluded, “actually make reasoned decisions. Something our politicians seem to struggle with mightily.” Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorSen. Kristopher Wells agreed. “Picard is right again,” he posted. “There was no consensus and the final report and recommendation have no credibility.”This newsletter from NP Comment tackles the topics you care about. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againThe complaint from Picard and Wells is not that Parliament could not decide. It decided. Seventeen members heard 44 witnesses and reached a recommendation. The complaint is that they decided the wrong way, and the cure proposed is to give the question to nine judges who cannot be voted out and might decide differently than the committee. Picard’s complaint is that politicians cannot reason and judges can, so the reasoning should be handed to the judges. A certain kind of progressive has made its peace with that arrangement: the hardest moral questions, the ones that divide voters and families, are too weighty to be left to the people who answer to voters, and are safer with clever lawyers who do not. On this view the Charter stops being a set of limits on government and becomes a standing invitation for judges to do the governing instead. It helps to know who else is asking. Wells is an activist and academic appointed to the Senate by Justin Trudeau in 2024, and he did not merely cheer from the sidelines, he sat on the committee. In their dissent, he and three fellow senators asked the government to skip the legislation and put the question straight to the Supreme Court. The Bloc Québécois wants the same thing. Courts have been writing Canada’s assisted-dying law from the start. The Supreme Court struck down the old prohibition in Carter in 2015, overturning its own ruling on the matter decades beforehand, and Parliament answered the next year with Bill C-14, a deliberately limited regime that offered MAID only to those whose natural death was already reasonably foreseeable. That limit lasted three years. In 2019, a single judge of the Quebec Superior Court undid it in Truchon, and Ottawa, rather than appeal, rewrote the law as Bill C-7 and opened the far broader Track 2, which permits assisted suicide for those who may be suffering, but are non-terminal. The lesson each time was simple: to move the legislative line, go to court. The government’s own lawyers told the MAID committee that both permitting and prohibiting assisted suicide for mental illness can conform to the Charter, and Carter expressly did not decide the mental-illness case. No constitutional wrong here cries out for correction. This is a question on which Parliament has a free hand, which is exactly why some would rather a court took the hand away. And this is exactly the sort of question where elected officials and expert witnesses and testimony should be used to make decisions, and in this case gives every reason for caution. In 2022, the veterans affairs minister admitted that one of the department’s caseworkers had offered assisted death to at least four veterans who had come for help. Christine Gauthier, a retired corporal and Paralympian, testified that she had been offered it while spending five years trying to get a wheelchair ramp. The minister called the conduct disgusting. More veterans came forward. Normand Meunier, a quadriplegic Quebec man, went into a Saint-Jérôme emergency room with a respiratory virus in January 2024 and lay four days on a stretcher with no pressure mattress, though he had asked for one. He came out with a bedsore that opened to the bone, was told it would take months to heal at best, and chose an assisted death rather than live inside that wound. A coroner’s inquiry has since examined how a hospital did that to him, and his widow is pursuing a lawsuit. The anecdotes are brutal. The data is worse. Ontario’s Office of the Chief Coroner, reviewing Track 2 deaths, found the people dying under the looser stream are worse housed and more vulnerable than the population at large: those in the most housing-unstable fifth of the province made up nearly half of all Track 2 recipients, and those in the poorest fifth were over-represented. The reviewers documented people approved for death amid untreated mental illness, addictions, and inadequate housing. With its 90-day waits and two assessors, the system still fails to keep the vulnerable out, and for too many it has become the path of least resistance, the thing the state offers after failing them everywhere else. Canada’s disability community has been raising this alarm for years. In March 2025, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recommended that Canada repeal Track 2 altogether. Krista Carr, of Inclusion Canada, put it plainly: “We are offering people with disabilities MAID instead of help.”As for the countries that have “figured this out,” some of their own doctors came to warn this committee. Jim van Os, a senior Dutch psychiatrist, told members the Dutch experience “offers a warning for Canada.” Psychiatric euthanasia in the Netherlands has climbed from two cases in 2011 to 219 in 2024; the number of young people receiving it has grown about 500 per cent in five years; and by van Os’s own arithmetic, of every ten young people who receive psychiatric euthanasia, only one would otherwise have died by suicide. The other nine would have lived. That is the model we are told has solved this.The committee is the best answer to its own critics. Its recommendation against permitting MAID for mental health reasons was supported by Liberal and Conservative members alike, the two parties that between them took more than 85 per cent of the vote in last year’s election; the dissents came from four appointed senators and the Bloc. Reasonable, decent Canadians look at the same evidence and land in different places, in good faith. Democracy exists for exactly that situation. We disagree, we still have to decide together, and the deciding belongs to the people who must answer to us for it. On Friday Mark Carney called it “a government decision” rather than a personal one. The Globe has reported that his government is prepared to legislate the exclusion rather than send it to the court.A reference to the Supreme Court would not make that disagreement disappear. It would only move it into a smaller room, the one with nine people in it. The judges disagree too, and they settle it the way the committee did, by counting heads, except that five heads among nine can overrule a national Parliament. Picard’s praise of judges who “make reasoned decisions,” unlike politicians, is not a throwaway. It is the whole worldview in a sentence: that the robed lawyers are the better moral reasoners, philosopher kings and queens fit to tell a free people whose suffering qualifies them for death. They have never claimed to be that. They are lawyers, good ones, asked to settle by majority vote a question the country is meant to settle for itself. The committee did its job. You are free to think it did the job badly, to say so, and to vote for someone who will undo it. What you do not get to do, having lost the argument, is appeal democracy to a higher court. National Post Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.