Politics—as practised in today’s hostile and divisive environment—has many loopholes, illogical moral justifications and, all too often, inserts a ‘poison pill’ that either kills legislation or that causes well-intentioned MPs to support bad legislation. Such is likely the case with the legislation promised last week (October 7, 2026) by Justice Minister, Sean Fraser.

On the day when MPs were scheduled to vote on the 2^nd Reading of Bill C-218, MP Tamara Jansen’s bill that would have prevented the death by MAiD of any person whose sole condition is mental illness, Justice Minister Fraser and Health Minister Marjorie Michel announced the imminent introduction of a government bill that would have removed mental illness alone as the sole requirement for the administration of lethal drugs to kill a person with no other challenging physical conditions; it also will contain a provision permitting MAiD based on an advanced request. In spite of the obvious flaw, it gave Liberal MPs the wiggle room they needed to vote against C-218 and still claim to be protecting patients with mental illness.

If the Liberals had merely taken the contents of C-218 and made it into a government bill, there would have been a cause for celebration. In fact, many pro-life and pro-family groups responded to the announcement—at first glance—with a measure of satisfaction. After all, it appeared that the government was now coming on side, doing the right thing, and responding positively to the recommendations of the parliamentary committee that earlier this year suggested that the law should protect vulnerable people with mental illness from a lethal injection.

Of course, it’s not that simple. The new bill, which has not yet been tabled, proposes to allow euthanasia to be administered by advanced request. That means that a person who is in perfect health, with no trace of mental illness and no symptoms of so-called unbearable pain could request to be poisoned to death at some future date when he or she may be considered incompetent to make such a request. In other words, a patient who is suffering from dementia or perhaps a head injury and is in a coma and unable to either request or deny request to be put to a premature death could be deemed eligible for MAiD.

That is the poison pill in this latest liberal attempt to establish eligibility for the broadest possible spectrum of Canadians who could be legally killed when they most need protection and medical support. It is not the first time that a Canadian Government has introduced unpopular policies by including them in a bill that has some redeeming features and which MPs may find it politically difficult to vote against. Pro-life and pro-family Canadians who are old enough to remember the words and actions of Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau can remember the not-so-hidden clauses of his Omnibus Bill C-150, which became law in 1969.

That bill legalized both abortion and homosexuality. Defending the Bill outside Parliament, the former Prime Minister famously said, “The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. What’s done in private between adults doesn’t concern the Criminal Code.” We all know what’s happened since then. Abortion on demand—for any or no reason—has taken the lives of over 4 million babies. What used to be done in the bedrooms of the nation has now invaded the living rooms and the classrooms of the nation. What began as “consenting adults” now impacts the lives of young children.

Alex Schadenberg, head of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and perhaps the world’s foremost advocate for those in danger of euthanasia and assisted suicide had this to say about the defeat of Bill C-218 and the promised introduction of alternate legislation by the Justice Minister: “Who would make the final decision to poison an incompetent person to death? The government bill, that we have not yet seen, may create a catch-22 situation where voting ‘No’ to the bill would allow euthanasia for mental illness, as a sole criteria, but voting “Yes” to the bill would permit euthanasia by advanced request. The government should separate the issues with two bills instead of one.”

Amanda Achtman, articulate and able defender of the vulnerable and the founder of Dying to Meet You, also saw through the government smokescreen. “The Liberal government is incredibly sly,” Achtman wrote on X. “They intend to table a bill banning death for depression while expanding death for dementia. Those properly opposed to euthanasia will not be able to support this bill, despite having campaigned for months to stop MAID for mental illness.” She said MPs who support the mental-illness exclusion may feel they have to vote for advance requests as well.

That’s where we’re at in this battle for the culture. The pro-death politicians currently in power are manipulators. They will use even well-intentioned voters and media influencers to pressure their opponents into conscience-conflicting choices. Those who value innocent human life must stay the course and vote for politicians who will not compromise on the issues of life and death.

CHP Canada continues to stand on our commitment to protect innocent human life at all stages, from conception until natural death.