House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 58% of the vote.
Hepatitis C April 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would be very disappointed if I took my car into a shop to be fixed and it could not find the problem but I would be even more upset if it not only could not find the problem but banged up the doors, ripped the upholstery, cracked the windshield and blew the motor.
Will the minister admit that all those who were infected with hepatitis C were better off before they entered the Canadian health system than after they were injected with poison blood. Were they better off before?
Hepatitis C April 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the minister compared the risk of infection with hepatitis C to the risks involved with many medical treatments. It is beside the point that heart problems and cancers cannot always be treated successfully because when people enter the hospital they already have those heart problems and cancers. They are not infected with them by the health system. How can the unsuccessful treatment of an already existing disease be equated with the infliction of a new disease on an unsuspecting patient?
Hepatitis C April 1st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, this is not about legal culpability but about compassion and moral responsibility.
The Tory health minister of the day followed through subsequently and delivered for those victims of thalidomide. Again, the Liberal health critic said: “I do not argue on the basis of legal precedent. I argue on the basis of a moral responsibility—”.
When did the Prime Minister lose that ability to tell right from wrong?
Hepatitis C April 1st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, in 1989 the Liberals in opposition urged the Tory government of the day to compensate thalidomide victims. The Liberal health critic rejected arguments that compensating victims would set a legal precedent: “I do not argue on the basis of legal precedent. I argue on the basis of a moral responsibility that the government must have toward its citizens”.
I ask the Prime Minister what has changed. What happened to those moral principles and the willingness to face up to a compelling responsibility?
The Family March 31st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has long called for equal tax treatment for one income families who care for their children at home. In fact this is part of our Reform blue book and was a central part of our 1997 election platform.
We should be offering a child care credit for all parents regardless of the method of child care they choose. Research from around the world shows that direct parental care for young children is one of the best methods of fostering secure attachment and preventing problems in adolescence and adulthood.
According to a national poll fully 94% of Canadians identified lack of time to spend with offspring as a serious stress on family life. In a poll conducted last year 92% of Ontarians said it was preferable for a young child to be at home with a parent. Yet the government implements tax policies which discourage and in fact discriminate against such an arrangement.
The most important relationship for the long term health of the nation is that of the parent-child bond. The family is the building block of society.
Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide March 25th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, in a 1997 poll of British Columbians 54% said they supported euthanasia. I would like to probe that poll a bit more deeply to demonstrate that the slim majority would collapse if three simple steps were taken.
That slim majority would collapse if the public were better informed about what euthanasia is and is not and what the criminal code does and does not say about end of life issues.
In Canada it is perfectly legal to refuse life sustaining treatment and allow oneself to die. Such refusal is not considered euthanasia. The poll in B.C. revealed that over two-thirds of supposed euthanasia supporters mistakenly believe that euthanasia includes refusing treatment. Apparently a considerable number of people who appear to support euthanasia do not realize that what they would like to see legalized is already legal in Canada.
Pollsters and their respondents have not been speaking the same language, which undermines the reliability of such polling results. That slim majority support for euthanasia would collapse if steps were taken to better inform the public about palliative care. I believe that would be the second reason that slim majority would collapse.
The B.C. poll revealed that most supposed supporters of euthanasia have formed their opinion based on a concern about pain and suffering. Only a minority, only 23% of all who were surveyed based their opinion on the belief that assisted suicide is a basic human right. That means that most supposed euthanasia supporters see changing the criminal code as a means to alleviate suffering. They incorrectly suppose that euthanasia is the only logical solution to pain, a false assumption which proponents of euthanasia work very hard to perpetuate.
The truth of the matter is palliative care is a third option and a much better one. It is a specialized field that has made great advances over the last several decades. It has now made it possible to die without unbearable suffering. Even in rare cases of extreme pain, controlled sedation can bring relief for those who request it and sedation is often required for only temporary periods completely in accordance with the patients' wishes.
The public needs to know that. Only when people are aware of the effectiveness of palliative care will there be any validity to polling. That slim majority support for euthanasia would collapse if governments were to step up their efforts to make palliative care widely available.
In 1995 a special Senate committee on euthanasia recommended that palliative care become a top priority in the restructuring of the health care system. Unfortunately palliative care services have not been promoted as vigorously as that special committee recommended. The availability of these services varies from region to region. It also varies depending on a patient's disease, with cancer patients usually having the best access.
Then there is the problem of inadequate funding for research and implementation. In addition there is limited training in palliative care in medical schools. These shortcomings are not something to be proud of, but they do suggest that a tremendous opportunity to meet the needs of Canadians lies before us.
At a time when Canadians are expressing their sincere concern about pain at the end of life, it is exciting to think that palliative care has advanced enough that it can genuinely address those concerns. All that remains to be done is to implement programs that will ensure the universal availability of palliative care services. It is entirely within our grasp, which is one of a number of reasons euthanasia is such an unattractive solution to the problem of pain.
If Canadians were to see governments moving strongly to fund and promote palliative care, we would see the supposed public support of euthanasia decline significantly.
If these three steps were taken the only true supporters of euthanasia who would be left would be those who argue that euthanasia is a basic human right, an argument that was rejected by the supreme court. It is crucial to realize that such people are in a decided minority and only 23% of those polled supported euthanasia on such a basis. As I pointed out, a good number of them did not really understand what euthanasia was. That is hardly representative of the democratic will.
This is only one of several reasons I am opposed to the legislation on euthanasia and will be voting against the motion this evening.
Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide March 25th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with the member for Calgary Southeast and would like unanimous consent of the House to do so.
Petitions March 25th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition to the House of Commons assembly today.
Several hundred citizens of Canada pray that Parliament will oppose the decriminalization of assisted suicide. They urge members of Parliament to oppose Motion No. 123 in the vote this evening.
Petitions March 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition which is signed by 275 people who express a very deep concern about the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission showing a very decided bias against Christian broadcasters by licensing the pornographic Playboy channel while on the same day, July 22, 1997, refusing to license four religious television broadcasters, including the International Catholic Broadcast and three multi-denominational applicants.
They view as hostile to them the CRTC's systematic refusal to license Christian broadcasters while at the same time consistently licensing sexually explicit and violent programming.
These petitioners state their constitutional right to freedom of religion, conscience and expression. They appeal to Parliament to review the mandate of the CRTC and direct the CRTC to administer a new policy which will encourage the licensing of religious broadcasters.
Petitions March 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by 496 people from Saskatchewan who want the Young Offenders Act to be repealed and replaced with measures that hold young criminals accountable for their actions.