Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to add my voice to this important conversation and an even bigger privilege to split my time with my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.
As parliamentarians, issues we debate in this place are often framed as life and death, but no issue we have discussed has ever come so truly close to verging on life and death as the one in front of us today, which is medical assistance in dying, or MAID, specifically elective MAID for the sole purpose of mental illness.
It is not the first time we have discussed MAID, or MAID for mental illness, in the House, and I have a feeling it probably will not be the last. This is because the Liberal government has treated MAID not as a sober rational conversation it deserves to be or as a collaborative understanding discussion, but rather as a political football, a hatchet job that highlights its deep commitment to breaking consensus in the country on an issue it has so sorely misjudged.
As a result of that carelessness, or whatever else it may be, we find ourselves here again in a debate for a proposal that should have been done away with a long time ago. Rather than attempt to discuss this legislation with nuance and care, we have what we have today. We know we cannot simplify an issue as fundamental as the state's ability to allow the taking of a life. We know there is much more to be considered.
In the process, the government replaced medical doctors with spin doctors, expert recommendations with partisan ideology and reason with dogmatism. We have heard from those on the front line, including 80% of Ontario psychiatrists, who are opposed to this expansion. Seven out of 10 provincial health ministers, plus all three territorial health ministers, support the indefinite pause on the expansion of MAID. We have heard from advocates, those directly impacted by MAID for mental illness, who agree that this proposal minimizes the value of their lives and the inherent dignity possessed by every single human being.
MAID for the sole purpose of mental illness speaks to the government's lack of respect for that dignity and it speaks to its missing belief in the ability of those facing difficulties and their ability to actually get better. Worse, it speaks to a perverse ideology void of ethical guardrails, which is so far from consensus that has so long been unbroken by the understanding that a role exists for government to exhaust all avenues to help people.
It is now prevalent to, rather than propose treatment and therapy to help those in tough circumstances, propose state-sanctioned death. We have a duty, as leaders, as parliamentarians, to safeguard the lives of Canadians, to give them a helping hand, to help them recover and to help them get better.
We believe in overcoming adversity, seeking help, in a system that works for those who badly need it. We believe it is possible, and the reason we believe it is possible is because it is possible. The success of early intervention, treatment and support has helped countless Canadians live fulsome, productive and meaningful lives. That is not just my philosophy as a parliamentarian; it is the core to what I think our national identity is. The alternative is what I describe as an entirely nihilist state, uninterested in the preservation of its own people.
Our country was formed by people who came from all over the world to seek a better life through hope, hard work and sacrifices. Our lives have been revolutionalized by the brave Canadians who never gave up and for a country that never gave up on them. Our story is defined by confronting whatever difficult obstacles might lie ahead, and not being intimidated by them but by surmounting them. It is not just a discussion about this legislation; it is a fundamental debate about who we are as Canadians and who we want to be and the powers we have as a Parliament.
I want to be clear that I do not want to minimize or deny the intense personal and lived experiences many Canadians have with mental health, many in the House, many who are close to people in the House. I know it is a deeply personal one for anyone who has been faced with that challenge.
However, I do want to put on record that the lives of those suffering are not any less worthy of help, support or love. I think that is what this eventual plan says, even with a pause. Expansion activists have tried to reassure Canadians that MAID is not suicide, that it would be distinguishable from suicide, yet when expanded to those who are seeking death for the sole purpose of mental health, evidence points to MAID becoming indistinguishable from suicide.
Therefore, despite the ideological pursuit of what I call the government's nihilism and the inability for it to manage its own legislation, it will not be able to escape the very real legacy that it has ushered in, a legacy that will become even more apparent as Canadians see more headlines of assisted suicide being offered to those in the Canadian Forces or to marginalized Canadians seeking an escape from suffering or poverty.
Simply put, people can get better. Recovery is possible. Whereas outcomes might be forgone in physical health, there is no clear evidence that says someone cannot overcome struggles with mental health, and that alone should be enough. I cannot stress enough that we have no way of knowing that it is not possible to get better.
Our methods are not advanced enough. The research says so. Only 47% of predictions about final outcomes are correct. Therefore, when a doctor diagnoses a lifelong mental illness, there is only a 47% change that he or she will be correct. That is like flipping a coin, only the odds are worse. Are we really willing to put something so substantial down to a game of chance?
This difficulty is compounded by the very fact that it is impossible for doctors to see mental health in the way that they can see things like terminal cancer. It does not show up in a scan or in a test. While it is not the subject here, I have to ask this. How fair is it to put doctors in a position where they cannot make a decision with 100% of the evidence or that the evidence before them, accounts of either the patient or the patient's family, is not what it appears to be? How can someone have the peace of mind that the best outcome has been decided?
We cannot let ideology blind us from the red flags that we are confronting at every step in this process. In the absence of certainty, it is fundamentally wrong for the state to do what I believe amounts to playing games with human lives. While I support the pause, not because its well argued, well planned or even well considered, because it is necessary, I do not think it is enough.
A pause, more consultation and more studies mean little if we refuse to listen to the facts and insights that they bring. No amount of additional testimony will change the fact that there have been significant doubts raised about the morality and ethics of implementing MAID for mental illness.
We cannot unhear those words that were spoken in committee. We cannot unread the words that we have seen plastered in the newspapers. We cannot ignore the accounts of those who are rightfully more than just skeptical.
I want those who side with the government to think about what the proposal, not the pause, actually means for the most vulnerable. It is unconscionable to me. I cannot understand the different perspective when mental health is the only condition that would allow someone to seek an end, a government-sanctioned end, to their lives.
There is only one pause worth doing. There is only one pause that is safe. There is only one pause that protects the innocent, the truly ill and the most vulnerable, and that is a forever pause. Anything less than that is a failure of this place.
