National
Medical Assistance in Dying now accounts for over 4% of deaths in Canada

The following are interesting statistics pulled directly from the:
Fourth annual report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada 2022
Growth in the number of medically assisted deaths in Canada continues in 2022.
- In 2022, there were 13,241 MAID provisions reported in Canada, accounting for 4.1% of all deaths in Canada.
- The number of cases of MAID in 2022 represents a growth rate of 31.2% over 2021. All provinces except Manitoba and the Yukon continue to experience a steady year-over-year growth in 2022.
- When all data sources are considered, the total number of medically assisted deaths reported in Canada since the introduction of federal MAID legislation in 2016 is 44,958.
Profile of MAID recipients
- In 2022, a slightly larger proportion of males (51.4%) than females (48.6%) received MAID. This result is consistent with 2021 (52.3% males and 47.7% females), 2020 (51.9% males and 48.1% females) and 2019 (50.9% males and 49.1% females).
- The average age of individuals at the time MAID was provided in 2022 was 77.0 years. This average age is slightly higher than the averages of 2019 (75.2), 2020 (75.3) and 2021 (76.3). The average age of females during 2022 was 77.9, compared to males at 76.1.
- Cancer (63.0%) is the most cited underlying medical condition among MAID provisions in 2022, down from 65.6% in 2021 and from a high of 69.1% in 2020. This is followed by cardiovascular conditions (18.8%), other conditions (14.9%), respiratory conditions (13.2%) and neurological conditions (12.6%).
- In 2022, 3.5% of the total number of MAID provisions (463 individuals), were individuals whose natural deaths were not reasonably foreseeable. This is an increase from 2.2% in 2021 (223 individuals). The most cited underlying medical condition for this population was neurological (50.0%), followed by other conditions (37.1%), and multiple comorbidities (23.5%), which is similar to 2021 results. The average age of individuals receiving MAID whose natural death was not reasonably foreseeable was 73.1 years, slightly higher than 70.1 in 2021 but lower than the average age of 77.0 for all MAID recipients in 2022.
Nature of suffering among MAID recipients
- In 2022, the most commonly cited sources of suffering by individuals requesting MAID were the loss of ability to engage in meaningful activities (86.3%), followed by loss of ability to perform activities of daily living (81.9%) and inadequate control of pain, or concern about controlling pain (59.2%).
- These results continue to mirror very similar trends seen in the previous three years (2019 to 2021), indicating that the nature of suffering that leads a person to request MAID has remained consistent over the past four years.
Eligibility Criteria
- Request MAID voluntarily
- 18 years of age or older
- Capacity to make health care decisions
- Must provide informed consent
- Eligible for publicly funded health care services in Canada
- Diagnosed with a “grievous and irremediable medical condition,” where a person must meet all of the following criteria:
- serious and incurable illness, disease or disability
- advanced state of irreversible decline in capability,
- experiencing enduring physical or psychological suffering that is caused by their illness, disease or disability or by the advanced state of decline in capability, that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable
- Mental Illness as sole underlying medical condition is excluded until March 17, 2024
3.1 Number of Reported MAID Deaths in Canada (2016 to 2022)
2022 marks six and a half years of access to MAID in Canada. In 2022, there were 13,241 MAID provisions in Canada, bringing the total number of medically assisted deaths in Canada since 2016 to 44,958. In 2022, the total number of MAID provisions increased by 31.2% (2022 over 2021) compared to 32.6% (2021 over 2020). The annual growth rate in MAID provisions has been steady over the past six years, with an average growth rate of 31.1% from 2019 to 2022.

Access to MAID for individuals whose deaths were not reasonably foreseeable marked its second year of eligibility in 2022. In Canada, eligibility for individuals whose death is not reasonably foreseeable began on March 17, 2021, after the passage of the new legislation.Footnote8 There were 463 MAID provisions for persons whose natural death was not reasonably foreseeable, representing 3.5% of all MAID deaths in 2022. This is just over twice the total number of provisions for individuals where natural death was not reasonably foreseeable in 2021 (223 provisions representing 2.2% of all MAID provisions in 2021). Table 3.1 represents total MAID provisions in Canada from 2016 to 2022, including provisions for individuals where natural death was not reasonably foreseeable.
All jurisdictions, except Manitoba and Yukon, experienced growth in MAID provisions in 2022. The highest percentage year over year increases occurred in Québec (45.5%), Alberta (40.7%), Newfoundland and Labrador (38.5%), Ontario (26.8%) and British Columbia (23.9%). Nova Scotia (11.8%), Prince Edward Island (7.3%) and Saskatchewan (4.0%) had lower growth rates. The Yukon remained at the same level as 2021, while Manitoba was the only jurisdiction to experience a decline in MAID provisions for 2022 (-9.0%).
MAID | NL | PE | NS | NB | QC | ON | MB | SK | AB | BC | YT | NT | NU | Canada |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2016 | – | – | 24 | 9 | 494 | 191 | 24 | 11 | 63 | 194 | – | – | – | 1,018 |
2017 | – | – | 62 | 49 | 853 | 839 | 63 | 57 | 205 | 677 | – | – | – | 2,838 |
2018 | 23 | 8 | 126 | 92 | 1,249 | 1,500 | 138 | 85 | 307 | 951 | 12 | – | – | 4,493 |
2019 | 20 | 20 | 147 | 141 | 1,604 | 1,788 | 177 | 97 | 377 | 1,280 | 13 | – | – | 5,665 |
2020 | 49 | 37 | 190 | 160 | 2,278 | 2,378 | 214 | 160 | 555 | 1,572 | 13 | – | – | 7,611 |
2021 | 65 | 41 | 245 | 205 | 3,299 | 3,102 | 245 | 247 | 594 | 2,030 | 16 | – | – | 10,092 |
2022 | 90 | 44 | 274 | 247 | 4,801 | 3,934 | 223 | 257 | 836 | 2,515 | 16 | – | – | 13,241 |
TOTAL 2016-2022 |
267 | 156 | 1,068 | 903 | 14,578 | 13,732 | 1,084 | 914 | 2,937 | 9,219 | 84 | – | – | 44,958 |
3.2 MAID Deaths as a Proportion of Total Deaths in Canada
MAID deaths accounted for 4.1% of all deaths in Canada in 2022, an increase from 3.3% in 2021, 2.5% in 2020 and 2.0% in 2019. In 2022, six jurisdictions continue to experience increases in the number of MAID provisions as a percentage of total deaths, ranging from a low of 1.5% (Newfoundland & Labrador) to a high of 6.6% (Québec). MAID deaths as a percentage of total deaths remained at the same levels as 2021 for Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan, while Manitoba experienced a decline in MAID deaths as a percentage of all deaths (from 2.1% in 2021 to 1.8% in 2022). As with each of the three previous years (2019 to 2021), Québec and British Columbia experienced the highest percentage of MAID deaths as a proportion of all deaths within their jurisdiction in 2022 (6.6% and 5.5% respectively), continuing to reflect the socio-political dynamics of these two jurisdictions in the context of MAID.
4.5 Profile of Persons Receiving MAID Whose Natural Death is not Reasonably Foreseeable
2022 marks the second year that MAID for persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable is permitted under the law if all other eligibility criteria are met (Table 1.1). New federal MAID legislation passed on March 17, 2021, created a two-track approach to procedural safeguards for MAID practitioners to follow, based on whether or not a person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable. This approach to safeguards ensures that sufficient time and expertise are spent assessing MAID requests from persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. New and enhanced safeguards (Table 1.2), including a minimum 90-day assessment period, seek to address the diverse source of suffering and vulnerability that could potentially lead a person who is not nearing death to ask for MAID and to identify alternatives to MAID that could reduce suffering.
In 2022, 3.5% of MAID recipients (463 individuals) were assessed as not having a reasonably foreseeable natural death, up slightly from 2.2% (223 individuals) in 2021. As a percentage of all MAID deaths in Canada, MAID for individuals whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable represents just 0.14% of all deaths in Canada in 2022 (compared to all MAID provisions, which represent 4.1% of all 2022 deaths in Canada). The proportion of MAID recipients whose natural death was not reasonably foreseeable continues to remain very small compared to the total number of MAID recipients.
This population of individuals whose natural death was not reasonably foreseeable have a different medical profile than individuals whose death was reasonably foreseeable. As shown in Chart 4.5A, the main underlying medical condition reported in the population whose natural death was not reasonably foreseeable was neurological (50.0%), followed by ‘other condition’ (37.1%), and multiple comorbidities (23.5%). This differs from the main condition (as reported in Chart 4.1A) for all MAID recipients in 2022, where the majority of persons receiving MAID had cancer as a main underlying medical condition (63.0%), followed by cardiovascular conditions (18.8%) and other conditions (14.9%) (such as chronic pain, osteoarthritis, frailty, fibromyalgia, autoimmune conditions). These results are similar to 2021.

Of the MAID provisions for individuals where death was reasonably foreseeable, the majority were individuals ages 71 and older (71.1%) while only 28.9% were between ages 18-70. A similar trend was observed for individuals where natural death was not reasonably foreseeable which also showed a greater percentage of individuals who received MAID being 71 and older (58.5%) and a lower number of MAID provisions for individuals between 18-70 years (41.5%). Overall, however, MAID provisions for individuals whose death is not reasonably foreseeable tended to be in the younger age categories than those where natural death is foreseeable.

Business
Next federal government should reverse Ottawa’s plastics ban

From the Fraser Institute
By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari
As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.
Recently at the White House, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reversing the Biden administration’s plan to phase out plastic straws. The Trudeau government, however, continues with its plan to ban single-use plastics, even though this prohibition will have minimal impact worldwide, will actually increase waste in Canada, and force a transition to alternatives that impose greater environmental harm. Rather than doubling down on a flawed policy, the next federal government should reverse Trudeau’s plastic ban.
In 2021, the Trudeau government classified plastic items as “toxic,” paving the way for the ban on the manufacturing, importing and selling of checkout bags, cutlery, stir sticks and straws—all single-use plastics. In 2023, the Federal Court deemed the designation “unreasonable and unconstitutional”—but the Trudeau government defended the measure and is appealing, with a ruling expected this year.
According to the latest available data, Canada’s contributes 0.04 per cent to global plastic waste. The United States contributes 0.43 per cent—more than 10 times Canada’s share. But neither country is a major contributor to global plastic waste.
According to a 2024 article published in Nature, a leading scientific journal, no western country ranks among the top 90 global plastic polluters, thanks to their near-total waste collection and controlled disposal systems. Conversely, eight countries—India, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia and Brazil—generate more than half of global plastic waste. And nearly 75 per cent of the world’s ocean plastic comes from Asia with only six countries (Philippines, India, Malaysia, China, Indonesia and Myanmar) accounting for most of the world’s ocean plastic pollution.
The Trudeau government’s own science assessment, cited in the court appeal, states that 99 per cent of Canada’s plastic waste is already disposed of safely through recycling, incinerating and environmentally-friendly landfills. Despite these facts, plastic has become a target for blanket restrictions without fully considering its benefits or the downsides of switching to alternatives.
Consider this. Plastics are lightweight, durable and indispensable to modern life. From medical devices, food packaging, construction materials, textiles, electronics and agricultural equipment, plastics play a critical role in sectors that improve living standards.
Alternatives to plastic come with their own environmental cost. Again, according to the government’s own analysis, banning single-use plastics will actually increase waste generation rather than reduce it. While the government expects to remove 1.5 million tonnes of plastics by 2032 with the prohibition, it will generate nearly twice as much that weight in waste from alternatives such as paper, wood and aluminum over the same period. Put simply, the ban will result in more, not less, waste in Canada.
And there’s more. Studies suggest that plastic substitutes such as paper are heavier, require more water and energy to be produced, demand more energy to transport, contribute to greater smog formation, present more ozone depletion potential and result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.
While plastic pollution is a pressing global environmental issue, Canada is not a major contributor to this problem. The rationale behind the Trudeau government’s plastic ban lacks foundation, and as major economies including the U.S. go back to plastic, Canada’s plastic prohibition becomes increasingly futile. The next federal government, whoever that may be, should reverse this plastic ban, which will do more harm than good.
Agriculture
Dairy Farmers Need To Wake Up Before The System Crumbles

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Without reform, Canada risks losing nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030, according to experts
Few topics in Canadian agriculture generate as much debate as supply management in the dairy sector. The issue gained renewed attention when former U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Canada’s protectionist stance during NAFTA renegotiations, underscoring the need to reassess the system’s long-term viability.
While proponents argue that supply management ensures financial stability for farmers and shields them from global market volatility, critics contend that it inflates consumer prices, limits competition, and stifles innovation. A policy assessment titled Supply Management 2.0: A Policy Assessment and a Possible Roadmap for the Canadian Dairy Sector, conducted by researchers at Dalhousie University and the University of Guelph, sheds light on the system’s inefficiencies and presents a compelling case for reform.
Designed in the 1970s to regulate production and stabilize dairy prices, Canada’s supply management system operates through strict production quotas and high import tariffs. However, as successive trade agreements such as the USMCA, CETA, and CPTPP erode these protections, the system appears increasingly fragile. The federal government’s $3-billion compensation package to dairy farmers for hypothetical trade losses is a clear indication that the current structure is unsustainable.
Instead of fostering resilience, supply management has created an industry that is increasingly dependent on government payouts rather than market-driven efficiencies. If current trends persist, Canada could lose nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030 — regardless of who is in the White House.
Consumer sentiment is also shifting. Younger generations are questioning the sustainability and transparency of the dairy industry, particularly in light of scandals such as ButterGate, where palm oil supplements were used in cow feed to alter butterfat content, making butter harder at room temperature. Additionally, undisclosed milk dumping of anywhere between 600 million to 1 billion litres annually has further eroded public trust. These factors indicate that the industry is failing to align with evolving consumer expectations.
One of the most alarming findings in the policy assessment is the extent of overcapitalization in the dairy sector. Government compensation payments, coupled with rigid production quotas, have encouraged inefficiency rather than fostering innovation. Unlike their counterparts in Australia and the European Union — where deregulation has driven productivity gains — Canadian dairy farmers remain insulated from competitive pressures that could otherwise drive modernization.
The policy assessment also highlights a growing geographic imbalance in dairy production. Over 74% of Canada’s dairy farms are concentrated in Quebec and Ontario, despite only 61% of the national population residing in these provinces. This concentration exacerbates supply chain inefficiencies and increases price disparities. As a result, consumers in Atlantic Canada, the North, and Indigenous communities face disproportionately high dairy costs, raising serious food security concerns. Addressing these imbalances requires policies that promote regional diversification in dairy production.
A key element of modernization must involve a gradual reform of production quotas and tariffs. The existing quota system restricts farmers’ ability to respond dynamically to market signals. While quota allocation is managed provincially, harmonizing the system at the federal level would create a more cohesive market. Moving toward a flexible quota model, with expansion mechanisms based on demand, would increase competitiveness and efficiency.
Tariff policies also warrant reassessment. While tariffs provide necessary protection for domestic producers, they currently contribute to artificially inflated consumer prices. A phased reduction in tariffs, complemented by direct incentives for farmers investing in productivity-enhancing innovations and sustainability initiatives, could strike a balance between maintaining food sovereignty and fostering competitiveness.
Despite calls for reform, inertia persists due to entrenched interests within the sector. However, resistance is not a viable long-term strategy. Industrial milk prices in Canada are now the highest in the Western world, making the sector increasingly uncompetitive on a global scale. While supply management also governs poultry and eggs, these industries have adapted more effectively, remaining competitive through efficiency improvements and innovation. In contrast, the dairy sector continues to grapple with structural inefficiencies and a lack of modernization.
That said, abolishing supply management outright is neither desirable nor practical. A sudden removal of protections would expose Canadian dairy farmers to aggressive foreign competition, risking rural economic stability and jeopardizing domestic food security. Instead, a balanced approach is needed — one that preserves the core benefits of supply management while integrating market-driven reforms to ensure the industry remains competitive, innovative and sustainable.
Canada’s supply management system, once a pillar of stability, has become an impediment to progress. As global trade dynamics shift and consumer expectations evolve, policymakers have an opportunity to modernize the system in a way that balances fair pricing with market efficiency. The recommendations from Supply Management 2.0 suggest that regional diversification of dairy production, value-chain-based pricing models that align production with actual market demand, and a stronger emphasis on research and development could help modernize the industry. Performance-based government compensation, rather than blanket payouts that preserve inefficiencies, would also improve long-term sustainability.
The question is no longer whether reform is necessary, but whether the dairy industry and policymakers are prepared to embrace it. A smarter, more flexible supply management framework will be crucial in ensuring that Canadian dairy remains resilient, competitive, and sustainable for future generations.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.
-
Banks10 hours ago
“Trade-Based Money Laundering IS THE FENTANYL CRISIS”: Sources expose Chinese-Mexican-Canadian Crime Convergence
-
Business1 day ago
Next federal government has to unravel mess created by 10 years of Trudeau policies
-
Business1 day ago
Trump’s trade war and what it means for Canada
-
Business14 hours ago
Bitcoin hits $90K as Trump plans U.S. crypto reserve
-
International1 day ago
Commerce Secretary on Oval Office debacle: Zelensky flies to Washington to sign deal then scuttles it
-
Business2 days ago
Lutnick says Trump could announce tariff compromise Wednesday
-
International20 hours ago
Washington Senate passes bill to jail priests for not violating Seal of Confession
-
Business2 days ago
Trump promises tariff revenue, fair trade and more jobs