Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate tonight. This is an example of the House working at its best, where there is reasoned and intelligent debate. Certainly we will not all agree with the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, but who am I quoting when I say “We do not argue his right to stand up and debate the issue or argue his case. We certainly would not deny the member that?”
The debate reminds me of the abortion debate. I know there are at least a couple of members on this side of the House who were here during that debate in 1989. I was a member of Parliament at that time. I often say I am very fashionable because I am a recycled member of Parliament. I was here in a previous life in the 34th parliament and I spoke on that issue.
This reminds me of that debate. It was one of those issues that I do not think the government wanted to bring to the floor of the House of Commons. That was understandable. Obviously there were two sides to that debate as there are with this one. I think that is reflected in the supreme court rulings that have come down on cases like this one.
One of them is the Sue Rodriguez case the member for Burnaby—Douglas quoted. He was very much attached to that case and to Sue Rodriguez herself. I do not always agree with the member. Nor do you. Nor does the House. He took a very courageous stand in defence of his position.
Ms. Rodriguez died before that ruling came down but the fact that they ruled 5:4 on that case indicates that even the supreme court is divided on the issue.
Canadians are looking for parliament to give them guidance. It is incumbent on us to do that and to bring this issue before the House of Commons for intelligent debate. I do not support the idea of spending money on a committee. The Senate did that. The Senate struck its committee. A couple of the members have mentioned the cost of that study. It becomes very expensive.
The secret to the whole process lies right here in the House of Commons. All members of Parliament are going to be here. They are paid to be here. They are paid to stand and present their positions. That is what I think should happen. An intelligent, reasonable, persuasive debate should take place in the House. At the end of the day we will have taken our respective positions and will have had our say.
I want to define euthanasia. I am sure there are people back home, including myself until I took the time to study the issue, who are a little confused on what the term means. I will quote from a fact book that was put together for me and other members a number of years ago by the Campaign Life Coalition.
This is basically a definition that Canadians should hear. The original Greek meaning of the term euthanasia is easy or good death. Over time this meaning has been lost so that today an acceptable definition of euthanasia would be to act or fail to act so as to cause the death of a human being for the purpose of relieving suffering.
The victim is usually though not exclusively a chronically or terminally ill patient, not necessarily imminently dying. The person performing the act of euthanasia is usually but not exclusively a health care professional. The participation of the medical profession in these acts has led to the use of the term medicalized killing.
As well as the understanding of the precise definition of euthanasia it is important to be clear on which medically based decisions at the end of life should never be classified as euthanasia. It is important that we listen to this carefully because allowing a terminally ill person at the last stages of life to die a natural death is not euthanasia.
Where the situation is medically hopeless, a decision not to provide or continue extraordinary or heroic measures where such no longer offer any hope for healing is ethical, legal and consistent with standard medical practice. It is important to remember that. More important, it is also consistent with thousands of years of religious belief and practice.
The purpose is to examine present law to decide whether or not it should be changed. That is what the member is asking. We do not disagree with that. It is just a case of bringing debate to the House of Commons and working through it in an intelligent fashion.
I am surrounded by members from all parties. To the right I have a few Liberals, to the left there are Reformers and there are a few Conservatives as well. The views of the respective individuals are interesting when we are engaged in discussion. There are some areas about which we fundamentally agree. There are some areas about which we fundamentally disagree.
This is the place where that debate has to happen. I urge all members to go home and do some research. In time hopefully this issue will come to the floor of the House where it deserves to be.
Earlier I mentioned the abortion debate which took place in the House. I remember as a member of Parliament at that time that I had to do some soul searching on the issue. I remember saying in the House that according to my definition if life begins at conception life should be allowed to continue. As a parallel to that, if we are talking about human life and we have accepted the fact that life is there, what right do we have as individuals to determine when that life should end? That goes back to the fundamentals.
We are talking about the continuation of human life or the termination of human life. It is no more fundamental than that. It is about life. It is about the preservation of life. It is about the continuation of life.
We have all had loved ones who have been terminally ill. I am sure many times the thought has run through the minds of many loved ones concerning whether or not there should be euthanasia.
At the end of the day I think most Canadians would say it is an issue worthy of debate. It is worthy of debate and it is worthy of consideration. Let us bring it to the floor of the House so that all concerned members will have a chance to speak on it.