Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with an extremely serious matter that must be analyzed in the greatest possible detail. This is an issue that has been discussed for a long time.
I recall very clearly that during the 35th Parliament, this issue was raised several times by the member who tabled this motion and also by Michel Daviault, the Bloc Quebecois member for Ahuntsic. That member went over the issue in great detail, made observations and addressed questions to the government on several occasions on this matter.
Just to remind you once again that it is not the first time that we are dealing with this issue in this House, on June 8, 1995, in a press release, he stated: “It is important that members examine these issues that concern all Quebeckers and Canadians and make recommendations before the House of Commons is called upon to vote on such sensitive matters”.
At one time or another, the government will have to examine carefully this whole matter. With medical advances and given what is acceptable today, which may not have been acceptable yesterday and evolves over time, a responsible government, a government that wants to reflect the evolution of society, will have to get its act together and deal with this area of responsibility, this admittedly difficult issue.
I wish to take the opportunity to congratulate the member who tabled this motion. I know that it is an issue that he has been closely involved with. If there is a member in this House that can speak from experience, it is the member from Burnaby—Douglas. I believe also, however, that this issue must be considered as objectively as possible.
What I find interesting in his motion is the fact that it gives parliamentarians an opportunity to study this matter in a non-partisan manner, with the help of scientists, doctors and families who have lived through such situations, and also in the light of our respective convictions. This is an issue that has social, economic, religious and moral implications.
All sorts of factors come into play, but this motion gives the government an opportunity to examine the issue and to take a real look at what could be done to arrive at a situation acceptable to the majority of Canadians and Quebeckers.
The present context is not an easy one. Some will say that respect for life is being used as an excuse to outlaw killing. I think they are right; that the dignity of human beings is not diminished by suffering. Others, however, will say that the respect for life and the right to die with dignity are personal values and that only the individual who is ill may decide. Legislating euthanasia and assisted suicide therefore poses many ethical problems. I think a committee could give very serious consideration to these ethical and medical factors.
Some news stories have advanced our understanding of this new problem. There was the case of Nancy B., Sue Rodriguez, and the most recent, which is still in the headlines, the case of Robert Latimer, a father accused of ending his daughter's life for reasons everyone has heard about. As we heard on the news, the decision is now under appeal.
There have been different interpretations in the media. However, some extremely important issues have been raised. Yes, the subject must be looked at, but I think it is so important that a very exhaustive study will be required before a bill can be introduced. The issue must be submitted to the House, studied and reported on even before those who will sit on the committee can draft a bill.
It is a complex task for a committee to study a bill. I participated in the review of the Young Offenders Act; the issue was not a heart-wrenching one but I can tell you that after six months, we had not completed the study and we were still pondering many questions.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are related issues. We can easily predict that studying these matters will take a long time. I would not want the committee to be burdened with the task of drafting a bill.
That is why, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will table an amendment to motion M-123. I would like to see a committee struck, a committee to examine the matter, to report to the House, and subsequently, after the public pressure and the societal debate that it will have triggered in a still more structured way—because this will be referred to the justice committee of the House of Commons, with the assistance of the hon. member who will be able to attend—there will be a report that the House will examine and study. I believe that the government across the way, giving it the benefit of the doubt as far as its responsibility is concerned, will be able to respond favourably to the report which would be tabled by the House committee.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the word “64(4)( b )” and by substituting the word “105”, by deleting the words “to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(5)”, and by adding after the words “and that the Committee be instructed”, the words “to report to the House”.
All in all, this amendment is very legalistic, very much in lawyer's jargon, if I can put it that way, but it is aimed at striking a committee. The committee could examine the entire question in a very clear way, report back to the House, and then the government could follow up on it by bringing in a bill, which would be along the lines of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.