Preventing Coercion of Persons Not Seeking Medical Assistance in Dying Act

Summary#

Bill C-260 is a proposed Act to amend the Criminal Code. It would add an offence for certain government officers or employees who start a discussion about medical assistance in dying (MAID) without a specific request. Its stated goal, reflected in its short title, is to prevent people from being pressured about MAID when they are not seeking it; the offence does not require proof of coercion.

• The offence would apply to an officer or employee of the federal or a provincial government, but not to a medical practitioner or registered nurse, including a nurse practitioner.
• The person must be in a position of trust or authority toward the individual because of their profession, and must know that the individual did not specifically request a discussion with them.
• A person who meets those conditions and starts the discussion would be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
• The bill does not set out a fine or other specific penalty.

What it means for you#

• People receiving services from government officers or employees: If the bill became law, a qualifying officer or employee could not start a discussion about MAID when they know you did not specifically ask to have that discussion with them. The offence would not cover every government employee or every unsolicited discussion.
• Medical practitioners and nurses: They are excluded from the people who can commit this offence under the proposed provision.
• Government officers and employees: The proposed offence would apply only if the person starts the discussion, holds a position of trust or authority toward the individual through their profession, and knows there was no specific request.
• General public: The bill would not prohibit all discussion of MAID or make unsolicited discussion by everyone an offence.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The bill creates a proposed criminal offence, but the supplied text gives no estimate of enforcement or court costs.
• It does not specify a fine or other penalty amount.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not define “specifically requested” or explain what counts as initiating a discussion.
• It does not explain how a position of “trust or authority” is determined.
• The bill does not specify the penalty for summary conviction.
• The supplied text gives no commencement date or other information about when the proposed offence would take effect.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to protect people from unwanted MAID discussions initiated by government personnel who hold professional trust or authority over them.
• Requiring knowledge that the person did not specifically request the discussion limits the proposed offence to cases where the employee knows the discussion is unwanted.
• A possible argument for the bill is that a criminal offence could give this restriction more force than a statement of purpose alone.

Case against#

• One concern is that the offence does not require coercion, pressure, or harm: a discussion could fall within it if the other conditions are met.
• The terms “specifically requested” and “position of trust or authority” are not defined in the supplied text, which could leave uncertainty about when the offence applies.
• The bill excludes medical practitioners and nurses, while applying to certain other government officers or employees; the supplied material does not explain that distinction.
• The text does not set out a penalty or explain how the rule would be applied in practice.