Debates of March 25th, 1998

Division No. 112

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member covered a lot of ground. I wanted to make a comment about the health aspects of the budget implications and ask him a question about his final comments.

He will well know that transfers to the provinces are comprised of two components: the cash component and tax points that were seconded to the provinces, which are basically the taxing authority of the provincial governments.

The net reduction in transfers to the province of Ontario under the Canada health and social transfer were some $850 million, whereas concurrently the Government of Ontario, the Mike Harris government, cut personal income taxes by $4.3 billion.

Five provinces have balanced budgets and have not seen fit to invest more into health care. Many of them are following the recommendations and the observations of the national forum on health which says that it is not a matter of money but of how wisely the money in the system is spent. Each province will have to look at that carefully.

My question for the member results from his final comments. He said to the people of Newfoundland that they would remain unemployed. He also said that there was no light at the end of the tunnel for them.

I do not think the government has given up on the people of Newfoundland. I am sorry the member has. A number of opportunities are facing us. One of the reasons members of Parliament are here is to work on behalf of all Canadians, especially those in most need like those in the province of Newfoundland.

Would the member like to rise and maybe withdraw his comments with regard to the position of the people of Newfoundland?

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member that I do not have to withdraw because I did not make the comment specifically about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The comment I made applies to the people of Atlantic Canada generally.

This was a bad news budget for the people of Atlantic Canada. There are no job creation efforts in the budget. It is the same old song and dance routine with the Liberals. They talk about the band-aid but they ignore the gaping cut they have created in the budget.

The hon. member talked about transfers to the various provinces. I am sorry I did not have a little more time to go into them. The budget and the CHST cash transfers to the various provinces are unfair. Ontario, Alberta and B.C., the three richest provinces in Canada, are all getting an increase, albeit a modest increase, in their cash transfers. Yet provinces like Newfoundland, P.E.I., Quebec, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia are feeling the pinch from this budget. These are the provinces that have been hit the hardest.

It is the same song and dance routine from this government. I did not make the statement that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador specifically have no future or that there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

Many good things are happening in Newfoundland. There is the Hibernia project. The Terra Nova project will soon kick in. Voisey's Bay hopefully in the not too distant future will start up. These are things which will happen in the future.

We need jobs now in Newfoundland and Labrador. Nine thousand two-hundred people a year are leaving our province. It may not be a significant number in Ontario but when there is a population of 500,000, 9,200 people a year is a very, very significant number.

Last year school enrolment in Newfoundland went down by 4,200 students, 4.3%. That is very dangerous in a province with a small population base. If that continues and if the federal government does not make some commitment to job creation, or at least give some indication of a post-TAGS program, then we are going to see the next outmigration from our province double what it is now. I really fear for that little province. Newfoundland should not have that kind of haemorrhaging.

There are young people coming out of university on a daily basis who cannot stop at the university door. They go to the airport immediately and head to other provinces, like B.C. and Ontario. We are educating people, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on education in Newfoundland, to have those people travel to B.C., Ontario and Alberta. We have a great deal of concern about that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I should advise the House that the five hours allowed for speeches of 20 minutes with questions and comments have now expired. We will now begin 10 minute speeches without questions and comments.

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in considering Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget, it is important to remember that the 1998 budget marks a milestone in Canadian history, thanks to the support of and indeed the sacrifices made by Canadians during the past five years.

This year, for the first time in 30 years, a balanced budget was tabled. The crushing $42 billion deficit we inherited in 1993, the highest deficit in Canadian history, is now a thing of the past.

In addition, the budget affirms our commitment to balanced budgets over the next two years; this will be the first time in nearly 50 years that balanced budgets will have been tabled three years in a row including this year.

With only a few minutes to comment on this budget, one has to focus on one particular aspect and it is somewhat difficult to select one out of the many interesting facets of the budget. One would have much to say, for instance, on this successful effort to achieve what is commonly called a zero deficit while slightly reducing the debt, providing some tax relief and making targeted social investments. This in itself would deserve extensive comment.

One could also comment on the good news for Canadian families, particularly with respect to the assistance provided for children and education. This budget could also be addressed from the perspective of recovery, of high tech research, in response to pressing demands in that area.

It all boils down to this being a budget which reassures those who have to make investment decisions, the economic agents, as well as those who are looking for work or for a new job, even though the unemployment level is still too high.

I would like to address another angle in particular. My choice of subject is inspired by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who spoke yesterday on the budget. As we know, he is the Bloc Quebecois finance critic.

I heard him announce his intention to do everything possible to block the millennium scholarship program. He said “This is a program we detest because it encroaches, and shamelessly to boot, into an area of Quebec jurisdiction. It is a program totally unacceptable to us”.

He also said that he hated this millennium scholarship program so much that it would galvanize his energies, that he was full to overflowing with the energy to fight this budget, and this proposal in particular.

It is very sad to see an MP, his party's official critic for Finance, and a man who has a certain influence in Quebec, or claims to, calling for people to join forces to do battle, calling for Quebec to fight this measure, which he detests, and stating that he will focus all of his energies on hating it.

This finance critic also accused the government of having accumulated surpluses in the employment insurance account that are too large, in his opinion, while at the same time accusing it of putting $2.5 billion in this fiscal year, which are in a way part of that surplus, into the millennium fund.

On the one hand, he is unhappy because the government is accumulating surpluses in the employment insurance fund; on the other, he is unhappy because that money is being put into the millennium fund.

This critic needs to get real. He must admit that there are very direct links, very important ones, between access to higher education, access to post-secondary education, and the ability for young people to find jobs, and it is they who will be the primary beneficiaries of the millennium fund.

This hon. member needs to admit that there is a direct link between the EI fund surplus and the immediate investment—not in two or three years—in the millennium scholarships.

Instead of rejoicing over this investment in young people, the Bloc Quebecois critic is pouring negative energy into blocking this measure. It seems to me that these people, he and others, who went on in school and obtained advanced post-secondary degrees, BAs, MAs, have forgotten that there are others in their footsteps, that there are young people today who also want to go on to higher education because they know that that is the key to landing an interesting job. It is also the key to mobility throughout their career.

They also know that these scholarships will enable them to obtain Canadian experience, to see what is going on in environments other than their own, and to be able to acquire international experience, to study abroad, to find out how other countries see things.

It would look like members of the Bloc Quebecois have forgotten about others, or that they do not want others to have access to these forms of education, which are important for the careers of young people wanting to work.

The strategy at the heart of this budget is equality of opportunity. I think this is what bothers certain critics most, particularly the Bloc Quebecois critics, because it is an approach that directly targets the needs of people, young people in particular.

In his speech, the Minister of Finance said “Canadians know that there is more to taking care of the nation than simply taking care of the books. Canada is not just a marketplace. It is a community. Our country is anchored in shared risk and shared benefits, in lending a hand knowing that, some day, we too may be in need”.

These comments hurt people like the Bloc Quebecois critic, because they are about Canada-wide solidarity and exchanges. They are about sharing, supporting each other, and investing together a large amount—that will serve us for years to come, that will serve young Canadians, including Quebeckers—in a joint account in which there will then be money available to meet our needs.

The notion of a Canada-wide solidarity hurts Bloc Quebecois members, because they are always saying that everything must be repatriated to Quebec, that there is nothing good throughout Canada.

Equal opportunity is an important issue for us in the Liberal Party, in the government, because it is a matter of basic fairness and social justice. We strongly believe in it. We also know that learning must be the central part of any national jobs strategy.

There are a number of elements to this strategy. I have not got the time to list them all now, but there are seven important ones, the first of which is definitely the millennium fund. We were told that $2.5 billion would be taken from this fiscal year and used starting in the year 2000 and for several years afterward.

Other measures worth a total of $3 billion will be spread across seven programs over the next three years, for a grand total of $5.5 billion.

I think these are significant sums. Canadians have the right to know the truth.

The nine young people in the delegation of 18 that accompanied me to our convention last weekend in Ottawa said they were very happy. They were not turning their noses up at the scholarship program and other measures. On the contrary, they were very happy, and I think they are representative of Quebec youth, which is happy to have the federal government providing them with a considerable amount of money for the next decade.

Once again, we are talking about opening the door to co-operation. The federal government planned for negotiations with the provinces to avoid duplication and to reach an agreement on implementing this measure.

Instead of taking offence, pouting and trying to block everything, the government in Quebec and one part of the opposition here should try to co-operate. I think it would benefit young people in Canada and Quebec.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I talk about the budget implementation legislation, I must put on the record how upsetting it is to have the 38th time allocation motion moved by this government. It has done this 38 times. It used to be done once and literally a government would be gone at the next election because of it. Thirty-eight times. It is pretty hard to explain to our constituents that we were not given an opportunity to speak because this government used time allocation.

There is a lot of deception in this budget. Liberals are talking about the golden age, the financial problem being all taken care of and the great auditing that has been done. Yet the auditor general deplores the methods used by the finance minister.

We seem to have conveniently forgotten about the debt. In 1969 our debt was zero. In just three years it quickly went to $18 billion. In 1993 our debt was $489 billion. Today it is $583 billion. That is the thing we should be talking about. That is what the people say we should take care of. That is what is threatening our social safety net. That is what is threatening our health, education and pensions. That is what is going to hurt our future generations more than anything else. This government chooses to ignore that and begin more spending.

The tax and spend concept does not take into consideration what is happening in the world around us. We do not hear from the other side any mention at all of the potential Asian meltdown or what effect that might have on this country and how we should be so cautious to take care of that potential rainy day that might be down the road.

Look at a country like Indonesia with 200 million people with a 60% drop in its economy. People are unemployed. People are literally on the streets because they have lost their sources of income. Rice prices have gone up time after time. Japan has an overextended bank situation. In Korea people are literally bringing their gold to the government to try to get themselves out of this crisis.

This is the kind of thing that this government should be taking into consideration in putting forward its budget. It has absolutely no consideration about the world in which we live.

In B.C. we see the beginning of what will be potential implications for all businesses. What businesses need most is a drop in taxation so they can plan to counter what those potential dark clouds might be. What happens when cheap competitive products come on the market? What happens when there is less purchasing power in some of those Asian economies? That is going to effect the U.S. economy. When it gets a cold we get pneumonia. This government has totally abrogated its responsibilities in planning for that future.

Look at the figures regarding our debt. Our interest payment is $45 billion. That interest payment is equivalent to other figures that should be considered, close to $12 billion of federal money for health care, $14 billion for education, $22 billion for pensions. Our interest adds up to more than all those payments put together and yet this government totally ignores that debt and that interest payment.

In 1993 when a number of us came to this place the taxes brought in about $125 billion. By the year 2000 that figure will be $173 billion that this government is taking in. Some of that is due to growth but a great deal of that is due to increased taxation. We are falling behind other places in this world. All you have to do is go around to different places to realize that our economy is dropping. Our expendable income is dropping. We are not the same country we were 10 or 20 years ago. This government by its high taxes and spending and by the kind of budget that we just saw is doing nothing to deal with that problem.

Look at our dollar. Just try to travel using the Canadian dollar and see where we are now in the world's economy.

This government had choices. It could deal with the debt and the problems it brings. I could have dealt with the taxes and brought them down which would have meant jobs and a great increase in our well-being in this country. Or it could have dealt with spending. It chose the third option. It chose to increase spending and to forget about the debt and let it take care of itself by this mythical dream that so many of these governments have about growth taking care of the problems. It never has and it never will. By raising taxes as this government has done it has done nothing to help improve the job situation for our young people.

The Liberals had a choice and they chose to ignore the debt. They chose to keep taxes the highest in the G-7 countries and they chose to start spending.

If we start to look at some of that spending it is shocking: Canadian opportunities strategies, $4.6 billion in increased spending; the millennium fund, which we hear about over and over again, a couple of billion dollars; Canadian culture, $440 million. That is pretty scary when we think of what has been spent on things like, dare I mention, the flag issue, $24 million to hand out flags and we know what happened in this place. Are there savings we could make?

The patronage appointments that constantly go on with this government, the waste that occurs here, the total desire to maintain the status quo and not change anything in this place are why we are in so much trouble.

What does this mean to us as Canadians? The saddest part is that all of this inactivity regarding the debt, regarding the taxes, is going to affect the next generation. It is going to affect the kids and grand kids of most of the people in here, and even further than that. Those are the people who are going to have to finally face up to $583 billion, to 30 cents plus of every dollar going to interest payments. That is what a future government is going to have to face.

This government should be embarrassed by the budget that has been put forward and by all the bragging about the golden age, that we have our financial problems taken care of, that we have nothing more to worry about. People out there are not stupid. People out there know that is not true. Far and away the biggest number of people out there are saying take care of that debt. In surveys which have been done, and it does not matter whether they are done in Quebec or Alberta or B.C., people have said that.

This government chose not to listen. I believe that as Canadians digest what is in this budget there will be a reaction. That reaction will not be favourable to the finance minister or to this government.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill we are debating today includes some very important elements of the Canadian opportunities strategy which was introduced in the 1998 budget.

In particular, the bill launches the Canada millennium scholarships foundation. With an initial endowment of $2.5 billion this foundation will provide more than 100,000 students full time and part time at colleges, vocational and technical institutes as well as universities with scholarships averaging $3,000 per student.

The bill also includes some very important measures to help manage student debt. It introduces a Canada education savings grant to help families save for their children's education. It gives employers an employment insurance premium holiday for hiring additional young Canadians, reducing payroll costs for those employers by about $100 million over two years.

These measures are only part of the strategy that we set out in the 1998 budget, a strategy that will help Canadians by expanding their access to the knowledge and skills they will need for better jobs and higher standards of living in the 21st century.

I want to take a moment to outline the other elements of that strategy. It is important to view these measures in the context of one another since they work together to provide a comprehensive set of tools to increase Canadians' access to knowledge and skills.

As part of the Canadian opportunities strategy the government proposes to introduce new Canada study grants. These grants recognize that many student needs are not fully met by scholarships and students loans. Beginning in 1998-99, Canada study grants of up to $3,000 a year will go to over 25,000 needy students who have children or other dependants. These grants will help both full time and part time students and will provide $100 million annually.

Assistance to students is only part of the information age equation. We must also recognize that nothing is more critical to Canada's economic success in the 21st century than vigorous broad based research and development.

To support graduate students and researchers as they develop the leading edge skills needed in a knowledge based economy, the opportunities strategy will increase funding to the three federal granting councils, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

These very important councils provide research grants, scholarships and fellowships. Over the next three years their combined budget of $766 million in 1997-98 will be increased by $400 million, and by the end of the year 2000-2001 the councils' budgets will be at the highest level in history.

As the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech, Canadians do not need to be told that student debt is a problem. That is why the strategy includes a range of measures to help reduce the financial burden on students, measures included in Bill C-36.

In addition, our strategy proposes that for the first time students will be given tax relief on interest payments on their student loans. This will be provided through a tax credit and it will help one million Canadians who are repaying those student loans.

Many Canadians in the workforce want to take time away from work to upgrade their skills through part time or especially full time study. But they often lack the necessary resources, so the budget also proposes several new measures to improve their access to learning through their lives. Therefore beginning January 1, 1999 Canadians will be able to make tax free withdrawals from their RRSPs for lifelong learning.

The need to continually upgrade knowledge and skills can be particularly hard for the growing number of Canadians studying part time and trying to manage the difficult balance of work, family and study. We are proposing therefore two new measures to help them.

Beginning in 1998 the education credit will be extended to part time students. This measure will benefit up to 250,000 Canadians. In addition, for the first time parents studying part time will also be able to deduct their child care expenses within certain limits. Currently only full time students are eligible. This new measure will benefit some 50,000 part time students with children.

Finally, our strategy takes action to improve Canadians' access to the information highway. Beginning in 1998-99 we will provide an additional $205 million over three years to expand and extend SchoolNet and the community access programs. There will be an additional $55 million to the Canadian network for the advancement of research, industry and education.

The Canadian opportunities strategy provides a diverse and comprehensive set of tools. These tools will help Canadians acquire the knowledge and skills they will need for better jobs and a better life in the 21st century. By expanding access to opportunity we are building a stronger economy and a more secure society.

The federal government has done its utmost to ensure that the Canadian economy continues to be built on solid foundations. The federal government will continue to offer programs which meet Canadians' needs and expectations.

That is why I urge all members to support Bill C-36 in moving us forward to implement key elements of our strategy. I know certainly that the people of Waterloo—Wellington support this bill and want it to proceed and I know that all Canadians indeed want this bill to proceed as well.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-36, the purpose of which is to implement certain provisions of the 1998 budget.

This bill contains a number of elements, but I shall address two of them in particular. First, the millennium scholarships. A foundation is being created to provide new scholarships to Canadian students starting in the year 2000, but it is being created immediately through this bill, taking $2.5 billion from this budget to structure the foundation so that it will be able to start awarding the scholarships in the year 2000.

This has been a pet project of the Prime Minister for some time, it seems. This is a project which the Minister of Human Resources Development is trying to defend, without much enthusiasm it seems, since it was obviously not his idea.

I have examined the various clauses in this bill, as it is the duty of every member to do when a new bill is introduced. I have noted a few details as I went along.

Clause 4 states:

1. The Foundation is not an agent of Her Majesty.

It is, therefore, a foundation that is not a direct agent of the government. In principle, this would be a totally independent foundation. I raise a question here, because it is nevertheless a foundation created by an act. Both Canada and the provinces have legislation providing for the creation of not-for-profit agencies or organizations, so a special bill does not need to be introduced.

When one is, this means there is a specific mandate, or the government wants to retain some power. Specifically, it retains power over the 15 foundation directors. Six, that is the chairperson and five other members, will be appointed by cabinet. These six will then appoint the others.

This much control right from the start means the government can choose who will be a member. Obviously, these will be friends of the regime, very probably people whom the Liberal government can trust. These people together will fill the positions on the board of directors with other people, who will likely enjoy the same Liberal confidence.

Some things are a bit odd. If we look, for example, at clause 13(5), we see when a member of the board ceases to be a member. The reasons given are fairly obvious, and it is rather odd that they take the trouble to identify them. The first point is “when a member dies”. This is rather self-evident. Some things in this bill are unnecessary.

But that is not the problem, as we know. The problem is that the foundation directly interferes in a provincial jurisdiction. The government is trying to say that the foundation interferes only indirectly. However, since it controls the members of the board of directors and appoints the first six, it is the federal government that will be distributing the scholarships to students. Why in the year 2000? Because it will look good and the government will have a high profile as it distributes cheques with maple leaves on them to thousands of students. It is after visibility.

On the subject, I would point out that this fits in well with the Liberal government's strategy of increasing its visibility through various means. There is of course the flag flap and the more than $23 million in the program the Minister of Canadian Heritage set up after the 1995 referendum. There was also the promotion of Canadian unity in the primary schools. This program cost $60 million including the flags.

Then there is the Canada Post Corporation, which changed its name. It cost $8 million to put “Canada Post” on the trucks.

I am the Bloc Quebecois critic on regional development. On March 4, the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec announced that the Federal Office of Regional Development—Quebec was changing its name. To what? To the Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions Agency.

This is all a visibility operation. The federal government is targeting Quebec in particular, because of the dreaded third referendum of course. It is seeking visibility any way it can, even if it means sending cheques directly to students.

I mentioned regional development, and since we are talking about the budget, I would like to draw attention to figures quoted in recent budgets, which seem rather odd to me. The budget allocated to the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec for administration increased by 16.9%, or $33 million. This is for the federal office for regional development in Quebec, which employs more than 260 people and which now has a new name.

The federal government plans to spend $380 million in Quebec without taking into account the strategy adopted by the Quebec government, which is to rely on decentralized organizations such as the RDCs, Quebec's regional development councils, and more locally, the local development councils, a new type of organization whose purpose is to ensure development at the local level within each RCM.

So, the budget was increased but, oddly enough, there is also a whole series of cuts. For example, there is $3,448,322 less for Quebec under the agreement on municipal infrastructures, $1,478,300 less for contributions for programs to improve manufacturing productivity, $1,256,943 less for the business development program, $959,890 less for the subsidiary agreement on tourism, $633,254 less for the innovations program, $845,362 less for the salmon economic development program, and $910,690 less for assistance programs in depressed areas.

I will skip the small figures. There is also $2,640,045 less for Montreal's industrial recovery, $4,462,000 less for Montreal's development fund, $635,000 less for industrial recovery in Southwest Montreal, and $40,000 less—a small cut, but still—for organizations promoting regional development.

So, the government came up with new names and approaches to increase its visibility, The federal office of regional development also has a new name, but again this is to increase visibility.

Finally, some cuts affect very specific programs. The overall increase is explained by the simple fact that Quebec had to deal with an ice storm. The amounts transferred by the President of the Treasury Board to the Federal Office of Regional Development have the effect of temporarily increasing the envelope for regional development, but if we look at each program individually, we realize that major cuts are being made.

All this leads me to say that the millennium scholarship fund, regional development and other issues which will be raised later on by some fellow Bloc members, are a smoke screen to hide the ever increasing interference by the federal government in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, two years ago British Columbia introduced a scheme whereby welfare recipients were required to have lived in the province for at least three months before they were entitled to benefits. This was directly aimed at the poorest sector of the economy, the people who were most in need.

I find it incredible that an NDP government should do something like that, something that would be more typical, shall we say, of California or the western United States.

Nevertheless it was done and it led to quite a confrontation among the NDP government in British Columbia, various poverty organizations and the federal government.

As a result of the NDP action the federal government cut $47 million in transfer payments to B.C. on the grounds that the Canada health and social transfer going to B.C. was aimed at all Canadians, not Canadians based on residency. Indeed this principle is enshrined in the charter of rights, in the Canada Health Act and certainly in the Canada health and social transfer program.

There were some angry words on both sides, but in the end an arrangement was made whereby the British Columbia government backed down and permitted anyone to collect welfare in British Columbia regardless of their province of origin.

Where this has relevance to the debate today is that we have a situation now in Quebec where the Quebec government receives money under the Canada health and social transfer, uses it to provide operating costs and tuition support for students in Quebec and, as of a year and a bit ago, the Quebec government introduced a differential tuition requirement for students out of province.

In Quebec today a student from elsewhere in Canada pays 41% more in tuition to go to a university in Quebec than a Quebec student. Tuition for Quebec universities is quite a bit lower than the rest of the country and this does reflect, indeed, some very wise spending decisions on the part of the Quebec government. However, just like all other forms of cash transfers from the federal government for social assistance, the very essential principle is that it should go to all Canadians regardless of where they are from.

Section 6 of the charter of rights specifies that anything that is accorded Canadian citizens should not be accorded to them or withheld from them based on their province of origin.

We have a Quebec government that is today discriminating against students from outside the province. It keeps young people in Quebec who were born and raised there based on territory and makes attending university in Quebec very difficult for students outside Quebec.

It makes a lot of difference to students. There are 20,000 of them in Quebec who have to pay the extra tuition because they want to go to a Quebec university. It is a difference of $1,200. That is a very high and tough price for a student coming out of province, who may be a francophone, to pay to go to university in Quebec.

What do we do about it? We have several choices. One thing we could do is create a national university in Quebec where it is fully funded by the federal government and where everyone has equal opportunity to go to that university. That is one possibility.

Another thing we could do is what was done in British Columbia and threaten to withhold the transfers that are due Quebec until it allows all students equal opportunity, including those from out of province.

Finally, we can make sure the money in the millennium fund is managed by an independent body outside Quebec and distributed equally to young people who want an education inside Quebec or outside Quebec. In other words, a student going from Ontario to Quebec who is a francophone should be given money from the fund equivalent to what a Quebec student saves. Any student in Quebec should have equal opportunity to travel anywhere in Canada to get an education. That way we get away from the fortress mentality of Quebec separatism and we build a better Canada for tomorrow.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from February 2, 1998, consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion M-123, moved by our colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, whom I congratulate, by the way, on his courage.

The motion reads as follows:

That a special committee be appointed, pursuant to Standing Order 68(4)(b), to review the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and that the Committee be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(5).

Beyond the differences of opinion that are normal and even desirable in a democracy such as ours, we have all, you, I and all members of the House, one thing in common: we were elected by our constituents to study, debate and make laws on all sorts of issues. We are lawmakers, and our actions therefore have a direct impact on the lives of all our fellow citizens.

But rarely, almost never, are we called upon to deal with issues as important and sensitive as the one now before us. Motion M-123 is not about amending marketing standards, about increasing or reducing the budget, or about implementing international accords, although all these issues have their importance. This motion touches on the very essence of who we are and what we believe, on the very essence of life and, since life would not be life without it, death.

Whatever the angle from which we approach the issue, we must keep in mind that our actions must be carefully weighed and considered, because there are some issues where a bad decision is not an option. The only other possibility excluded from the outset is indifference, or acting as though the problem did not exist.

But despite the apparent scope of this debate, we can take comfort in knowing that we are not starting from zero. Many discussions have taken place, many rulings have been handed down, and recommendations made at various levels, here in particular. After spending several months hearing witnesses and gathering briefs from everywhere in Canada, a special Senate committee on euthanasia and assisted suicide tabled a full report on this issue in June of 1995. Even though the committee did not reach a consensus on what ought to be done or not done, which was not part of its mandate, the outcome of its study will be very useful to us, as elected parliamentarians, during the forthcoming debates and discussions.

These last few years, besides this Senate committee, several cases were given wide coverage by the media. The most famous one is probably the story of Sue Rodriguez, a woman with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis who, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, challenged the ban on assisted suicide in the Criminal Code.

In December 1992, the Supreme Court of British-Columbia turned down her request, stating that section 241 of the Criminal Code did not go against the charter. On March 8, 1993, the Court of Appeal of the same province rejected the appeal by Ms. Rodriguez. Lastly, on September 30, 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada put an end to her crusade, with a close five to four decision that did not quash the debate, far from it.

On this issue, the comments made by dissenting justice Peter Cory reflect the state of mind of several of his colleagues. He stated and I quote “The life of an individual must include dying. Dying is the final act in the drama of life. The right to die with dignity should be as well protected as is any other aspect of the right to life. State prohibitions that would force a dreadful, painful death on a rational but incapacitated terminally ill patient are an affront to human dignity”.

Despite some dissension within the Supreme Court, there was unanimity on one issue, namely that the decision belongs to us, as elected representatives. Whether it be the British Columbia Supreme Court, the British Columbia Court of Appeal or even the Senate committee, all those who studied this issue have said that it is our responsibility.

On February 12, 1994, Sue Rodriguez, assisted by a physician, took her own life. I will let my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas speak of this case in further detail if he wishes to do so.

In Quebec, in 1992, the case of Nancy B. gave a lot of people food for thought. The 25-year-old woman was suffering from an incurable disease called Guillain-Barré syndrome. At a certain stage of the disease, she had to be hooked to a respirator. She asked for the right to stop supportive treatment. The Quebec Superior Court recognized that right, and Nancy B. left this world courageously, in silence, in sickness, but at the time of her choosing.

Two other cases are worth mentioning here. First, there is the case of Austin Bastable, a 52-year-old Ontarian suffering from chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. During the 35th Parliament, he wrote several times to members to ask, just as Sue Rodriguez had asked the courts, for the right to die at the time of his choosing, with the assistance of a physician.

Like Sue Rodriguez, he realized that it is not easy to get an answer from a government that may be ill prepared to deal with such a request. Austin Bastable had to go to the United States, away from his family and friends, to die assisted by a physician whom he had probably never seen before. That is not dying with dignity.

Finally, the case of Robert Latimer raises other questions. In this case, he was not the one who was sick. He and his wife decided to take the life of their daughter Tracy, who was suffering from cerebral palsy and from serious physical malformations causing incredible pain. She had no hope of getting any better.

Although we will have to deal with this issue, Mr. Latimer's case is outside the scope of this debate since it is murder for compassionate reasons, which means that someone decided to take someone else's life.

It must be understood that we are talking here about the right of a competent adult who is terminally ill or who is suffering from an incurable disease to make that decision for himself or herself. The decision is not meant to be made for that adult by another person, a doctor, a relative or a parent.

To conclude, these four examples of individuals who have fought to further the debate each in their own way clearly show how important it is that the matter be clarified once and for all.

So far, the courts have had to decide the many difficult issues brought before them. Without minimizing the importance of their work, it seems clear to me that we will not always be able to leave this in their hands. Sooner or later Parliament will have to make a decision.

Both the current Minister of Health—and former justice minister— and the Prime Minister promised a free vote in the House on this issue. Federal Liberal Party members have already passed a resolution along those lines at one of their conventions. The Bloc Quebecois too repeatedly asked that the House address this issue. More than ever, it is important that this serious and current issue be debated and debated now.

Motion M-123 is a perfect opportunity to do just that, and I hope it will be supported by a majority of parliamentarians. Because there is no life without death, because death is part of life, as its hidden face, we have a duty to develop frameworks which are fair and which respect human dignity.

Could we really imagine choosing for ourselves and all our loved ones anything but a gentle and humane death with dignity? Anything but the freedom of choice?

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion proposed by my colleague the member of Parliament for Burnaby—Douglas.

If adopted by this House, the motion before us would put into place a process that would see the development of a special committee designed to review certain provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. The provisions of which I speak are those governing or outlawing the practice of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. In addition to that, the special committee would also be required pursuant to Standing Order 68(5) to report its findings back to this House in the form of a bill.

In short, this motion is calling upon the Parliament of Canada to devise a mechanism of study with the budget, mandate and capacity to further explore this highly emotional and deeply personal issue. I would respectfully submit to all members of this House that we have concluded this debate. As such we should put it behind us once and for all.

This issue is not a new concept. The practice of euthanasia has been around for as long as mankind has experienced disease. It is however only in the last two centuries that this matter has entered the political arena.

The issue of euthanasia, better known to many of us as mercy killing, is one of the most highly contentious matters ever examined by modern politicians. It has commanded the political spotlight for years. However, despite the prominence of this divisive and emotional topic and regardless of the constant attention it has received, euthanasia defenders seem reluctant to allow the issue to fade.

The subject itself is one that predates most other topics brought before this House of Commons. The term euthanasia is in fact an ancient Greek word meaning good or easy death. This was the original meaning. However, today the Campaign Life Coalition defines euthanasia as a practice of acting or failing to act so as to cause the death of a human being for the purpose of relieving suffering.

As well as understanding the exact definition of the term, it is also important that for the purpose of debate we clearly differentiate between a sound medically based decision to end a life and the practice of euthanasia.

Permitting an individual with a terminal illness to conclude their life in a natural fashion is simply not euthanasia. Where the situation is medically hopeless, a decision not to provide or to halt the continuation of artificial or extraordinary measures is in my opinion ethical, legal and consistent with standard medical practice. This would also be consistent with thousands of years of established religious philosophy.

In essence the textbook definition of euthanasia is the deliberate act of one human being designed to promote the death of another human being. This could be accomplished through the use of several methods such as a lethal injection or the intentional and deliberate failure to provide the essentials of life to another.

The practice of euthanasia can be further subdivided into two groupings, passive and active. I believe however that the terms passive and active euthanasia are simply that, terms. In all cases of this nature the intent is to kill; the method is simply a question of strategy.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the matter of assisted suicide. Few would argue that assisted suicide has attracted the lion's share of public attention over the past several years. The argument of quality of life versus quantity of life is most commonly used which, if allowed to go unchallenged, could lead to countless abuses of basic human rights.

In instances involving assisted suicide, the mind is willing to commit the fatal act but the body due to the individual's physical impairment is not able to perform the required action. As such the individual is forced to seek the assistance of another to perpetrate the fatal act.

Although assistance of this type is usually provided reluctantly for compassionate reasons, this is not always the case. It should be noted that regardless of the method, classification or motive, Canadian law currently does not recognize compassion as an acceptable justification for killing another individual.

In fact the Canadian Medical Association has democratically determined that it is in the business of promoting health and recovery. It does not want its members to engage in the practice of assisted suicide. The British Medical Association also took this stance as it believes that to permit doctors to kill or to assist in killing would seriously jeopardize the continuation of their traditional role as healers.

I feel Dr. Christoph Hufeland summarized it best over 200 years ago when he stated “If a physician presumes to take into consideration in his work whether a life has value or not, the consequences are boundless and the physician becomes the most dangerous man in the state”.

I have been a member of this House for only a few short years. However, I have been an avid participant in the political process for much longer than I would care to recall. I can remember several instances in the very recent past when this matter sparked heated debate in this place.

In 1991 there was Bill C-203 and Bill C-261, both introduced with the intention of dealing with the mercy killing issue. In 1993, Motion No. 397 made its way to the floor, followed in 1994 by Bill C-215 and Motions Nos. 218 and 277.

Despite constant attention the issue continues to be on our agenda. I believe that we should get on with the business of running the country and should stop dwelling on the resolved issues of the passed.

The national news headlines often glisten with names such as Jack Kevorkian, Sue Rodriguez, Nancy B and Robert Latimer. While these individual cases can serve as tangible reference points, they also can distract from and act as a compelling hindrance to our grasping of the deeper moral and spiritual argument surrounding this matter.

Due to the contentious nature of this issue, the public, the courts and many of our nation's legislators find themselves struggling with their own personal value system.

As representatives of the people we must also consider the thoughts and opinions of our constituents. In addition, we must be ever vigilant of the media and various special interest groups seeking to influence the outcome of this debate.

In short, it is our duty to examine this issue based upon the facts, examples and testimonials at hand. We must make our final decision with an unbiased frame of mind and not because of any political agenda or due to media based sensationalized propaganda. We have already done that.

My personal views with respect to euthanasia are quite simple. It would seem that we have now somehow confused the right to die with the subject of euthanasia, or the deliberate killing of those who are suffering. They are not the same.

The right to die is defined as an individual's right to determine whether unusual or heroic measures should be taken. These measures would typically involve expensive, artificial and/or mechanical means of life support intended to prolong life in cases where death is almost certainly inevitable.

Supporters of euthanasia would claim that it is an exercise of a fundamental human freedom. I would strongly disagree. Euthanasia is not an exercise of a basic human freedom but rather an abandonment of that freedom.

In the February 17, 1993 edition of Hansard , the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell summed up this entire debate when he said “what we are debating is whether we will give the right to any human being to kill another human being”. I personally fear that society would devise an infinite number of uses for death once it has become a legal means for solving human problems.

During one of the world's darkest time periods, the Nazi party developed and promoted a set of proposals designed to weed out certain people who were considered to have no value to society. The idea was adopted by the general public and the medical community of the day. As a result, the war machine euthanized more than 300,000 mentally handicapped children and adults in addition to the thousands of elderly people who were deemed to be useless by the Third Reich.

I understand that this is an extreme example. However, if members would like a more recent testimonial, they need look no further than the 1991 article written by Jack Kevorkian which suggested that the concept of a planned ending of a human life by the direct action of another human is only the tip of the iceberg. In that same article he suggested that the moral reasoning could be extended to capital punishment, both voluntary and involuntary; obligatory suicide; or quasi-optional suicide for relief from illness, disability and old age. This is absolutely unacceptable.

In my maiden speech in this place, I stated that it is by personal belief that life is a sacred gift from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. For that reason I believe that as legislators we must never condone or legalize the deliberate unnatural taking of life.

At the same time, when life can be only sustained through the use of extreme medical measures, allowing the natural and inevitable process of death to run its course is not necessarily wrong.

Once again I reiterate my opposition to the motion before us. The Criminal Code of Canada currently regards euthanasia or mercy killing as culpable homicide or murder. In fact, section 229 provides for a 14 year jail term or penalty for assisting in the planned death of another person.

I have been and continue to support the law as it stands. I feel that striking another special committee represents an unnecessary revival of an already concluded matter. The 1997 year end edition of Maclean's magazine labelled Canada and Canadians as confident, united by bedrock values in a wide variety of ideas including spiritualism.

Canadians are calling for their government to provide direction and guidance with respect to this bedrock value. A special committee would be unnecessary, wasteful and counterproductive. The wishes of the majority of Canadians are already recognized and supported by the current law.

It is for these reasons that I will not be supporting Motion No. 123 this evening.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

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.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member split the 10 minutes allotted to him with the hon. member for Calgary Southeast?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

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.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, some of the pertinent and important technical aspects of the debate that have been addressed by some of my hon. colleagues, questions such as the Senate committee hearings on these matters and the availability of palliative care, are all important issues and ought to have a bearing on the judgment we make here today.

However, ultimately what is before us today is a question fundamental to the nature of liberal democracy, a question that drives to the heart of what it is to be a citizen, a question of how we exercise personal liberty, and a question of the fundamental rights vested in parliament to protect on behalf of its citizens.

The preamble to the Constitution of Canada states that “whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”. This was no accident. Its placement in the charter reflects a long and central tradition in the theory of liberal democracy, the notion that we do not grant rights unto ourselves. We do not create ourselves and we therefore do not create our own rights, but we are created and rights are bestowed upon us. Fundamental human rights such as the right to life are inalienable. Even individuals cannot through the exercise of some radical personal autonomy alienate rights which cleave to the human nature of individuals because they were granted to us by our Creator.

This is what the preamble of our constitution suggests. This is what the first section of our constitution suggests where it enumerates fundamental rights, the very first of which is the right to life.

This is an echo of the foundational document of liberal democracy, the American Declaration of Independence which states that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these is the right to life.

Certain inalienable rights are rights that cannot be alienated by a legislature, rights that cannot be alienated by a doctor whose business is killing and rights that cannot be alienated even by ourselves.

In this motion we are ultimately discussing whether or not parliament will grant to people the right to destroy themselves and the right to destroy the inviolable dignity stamped on them by the Creator of which our constitution speaks.

I say that we must never, in this society animated by a profound understanding of the inviolable dignity of the human person, allow a radical notion of personal autonomy or a disordered understanding of human liberty to overcome our most profound obligation as people, as creatures and as legislators to protect human life.

If parliament were to consider the motion and were consequently to pass legislation legalizing euthanasia and what is euphemistically referred to as physician assisted suicide, parliament would be entering the final taboo which would permit the wilful killing of the human person.

This century, the 20th century, what Pope John Paul II referred to as the century of tears, is tragically filled with a history of political movements based on the disordered notion of the authority of the state or of the authority of the individual which has resulted in the deaths of thousands and millions of human persons and sometimes the death of those persons based on physician assisted suicide and on euthanasia.

We must as legislators look seriously at the history of this century and understand that when the inviolable value of human life becomes compromised we all stand at risk.

I call on my hon. colleagues this evening to vote against what I think is a very dangerous motion.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House to support the motion of my colleague, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, that a special committee be appointed pursuant to Standing Order 68(4)(b) to review the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with euthanasia and physician assisted suicide and that the committee be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill in accordance with Standing Order 68(5).

As a new member of this House I have come to learn that the House of Commons deals with many important issues, but rarely do we get an opportunity to discuss with reason and clarity the issue that is before us today.

First, I would like to thank my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas for bringing this motion forward again. He has done it with courage. He has raised this issue in the House before. He has been an advocate for the dying with dignity movement and has become personally involved with this issue in a number of cases. It is not an easy matter to deal with. The fact that he has brought this forward and called on the House to enter into an intelligent discussion is something that shows courage and strength which all members of this House should support.

I would like to deal with several points. The first point I would like to make is that the status quo as it exists today is simply impossible and increasingly untenable. That is why this issue will not go away. It is increasingly untenable not just for Canadians as individuals in our society, but also for us as parliamentarians and under the law.

We only have to look at the tragedy of what happened to Sue Rodriguez. We only have to look at what has happened to Canadians who have been forced to leave Canada in order to exercise personal choice about their health and circumstances in their lives. We only have to look at the cases that have been spoken about in this House of people who are in desperate situations having to take desperate action because the law has been inadequate, the law has been archaic, the law has not been able to deal with the needs of people today.

The impossibility of the status quo exists in part because of our inaction. I will be the first one to rise and acknowledge—and this is the first time I have debated this issue, but I have heard it debated by other members—that this is a complex and difficult issue to take on.

I do believe that Canadians expect and want to see debate and guidance from Parliament, from their member of Parliament and from the House as a whole, on this issue. The reason I say that is that all of us know that Canadians today take more and more responsibility for the choices they make about their lives and particularly about their health care.

We only have to look at the debate that is going on in the standing committee on health around herbal remedies to know what an incredible industry has developed around alternative medicines. More and more people are choosing to become educated and informed about their health. In that context there has been a public debate.

There are polls which indicate that Canadians want the issue of physician assisted suicide to be clarified and to be resolved, not just to be debated, but for the status quo to be examined.

I was interested to see a poll that was done in December 1997 by Pollara. Astonishingly maybe to some members of this House, it found that 70% of Canadians would find it acceptable in some circumstances for a doctor to help a patient die.

The history of this issue in the House and in our local communities makes it very clear that Canadians believe the status quo is unacceptable.

The second point I would like to make is that the right to die with dignity is a most personal issue. It has been very interesting to hear the debate of some Reform members and government members in this third hour who have talked about the intervention of the state. I have heard Reform members on other issues talk about how the state should stay out of the lives of Canadians.

Here we have a most fundamental issue, and a personal issue, which is someone's right to die with dignity. I believe very strongly that the purpose of the law should be to facilitate individual choice, not to facilitate the denial of choices. But unfortunately today's status quo situation leaves individuals suffering a terminal illness or an incurable disease without legal choices.

We are debating in the House the basic right of a competent adult to make a decision about their own life when they are in circumstances of a terminal illness or an incurable disease. I think it is fundamental in this motion, and in all the debate that has taken place, that what is key is that the decision can only come from the person involved, not from anyone else. It cannot come from a doctor, not from a family member, a stranger or a health care provider. The decision about what we do with our life is our decision alone.

I have some personal appreciation of how difficult and how intensely personal these matters can be. I do know what it means to be with someone you love who is dying. I do know what it means to care for someone in that situation. What I have learned is that the needs and wishes of that person are the most important things on the mind of a care provider. Nothing else matters.

In those circumstances I believe that for family members involved and for the person facing these kinds of choices there is actually a heightened sense of clarity about what choices there are and what it is that is personally ethical.

There is no question there are difficult decisions, even around issues of palliative care. A number of members have spoken about palliative care and have suggested that it somehow is the answer to this issue, that if we could somehow make that work better we would not be dealing with physician assisted suicide.

I am a very strong supporter of palliative care. From personal experience I know what is involved and what it means. Even in that situation there are very difficult decisions to be made by a patient or by family members. But at least in that situation we do have a health care system that provides some support and guidance.

But when it comes to other circumstances, when a person has made a fundamental decision that the time has come, that they need to have assistance to end their life because of their circumstances and what they are facing, then there is no question that families are often left alone with no help, no support to make those very painful decisions that they know to be right. That is something we cannot take away from people.

I believe we have an obligation to resolve this issue. We have an obligation to review the law. We have an obligation to guide the law and we have an obligation to make the law fit our society today and the right to die with dignity.

The motion before us, which we will vote on today, simply asks that a special committee be appointed to review the provisions of the Criminal Code. That is something that should be supported by all members of this House in the acknowledgement and understanding that if we do not do this today we will likely be debating this matter in another few months or in another year because the issue will still be here.

Surely it is the proper course of action that we pass this motion. This is what we are here to do. We are here to debate, to review and to decide on issues that affect our lives, the lives of Canadians, not just in terms of budgets and resources, but in terms of the quality of life itself and the right of a competent adult to make her or his own decision concerning their life.

I urge all members of the House to support this motion.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the matter of euthanasia and assisted suicide has enormous ethical and legal ramifications. At the outset it is critical to note that the non-initiation and cessation of medical treatment is distinctly different from a deliberate action taken to bring about the death of a patient. A huge difference exists between allowing to die and killing.

We are engaged in a discussion on whether we as legislators should change the Criminal Code of Canada to permit the killing of persons with permanent or terminal illness. Let us be clear about that.

The right of a competent individual to refuse or cease medical treatment has long been accepted in law and in care giving, but for this country to permit euthanasia and assisted suicide, removing the penalties of criminal law, as has been done in Holland, will in effect redefine the values of the state. Further, it will gravely impinge on the traditional relationship between the patient and the physician and the role of palliative care within our health system.

Let us consider the doctor-patient relationship. The trust inherent here must be preserved. The belief that the patient's self-interest is always the physician's priority is the most vital component of that relationship. By creating a society in which the physician may participate in the active taking of life we cross a threshold and threaten the trust of beneficence that is the root of the physician-patient relationship. Where there is already vulnerability we risk the creation of fear and mistrust.

It is imperative to consider what motives might be behind a person's request for euthanasia or assisted suicide. Frequently the patient has begun to see himself as a burden on loved ones and feels obligated to cease being so. Sometimes the seriously ill patient is fearful of unrelieved pain that might not be managed and looks to assisted suicide as a way out.

While it is diminished, our health care system is capable of correction and of providing the resources and priorities necessary to address these fears. With appropriate support from hospitals, hospice and community care the concerns of the patient can be remedied. When the efforts of the care givers shift from curative to creating a comfortable environment wherein the person receives pain control, psychological and spiritual support, the opportunity exists for great integrity in the final weeks or months of the ill person's life.

As a former hospice worker I have witnessed great intimacy and honesty between the terminally ill person and his or her family that would never have occurred should the road chosen have been euthanasia instead of palliative care. Not only does resorting to euthanasia risk hijacking palliative care in this country and endangering the patient-physician relationship, it also leads our society on a trajectory we do not want.

The example of Holland, the only western country to officially sanction euthanasia and assisted suicide, cannot be omitted from any debate. Although the Dutch guidelines require that the patient be experiencing unbearable pain, that requirement is now read to include psychic suffering or the potential disfigurement of personality. I ask my colleagues how far down the slippery slope this shows the Dutch have gone. A further example is the landmark decision of 1993 in which a Dutch psychiatrist was ruled to be justified in helping his depressed but physically healthy patient to commit suicide.

The trajectory becomes a downward spiral, one on which this country must not embark.

In 1982 the Law Reform Commission of Canada raised the concern that there is a real danger that the procedure developed to allow the death of those who are a burden to themselves may be gradually diverted from its original purpose and eventually used to eliminate those who are a burden to others or to society.

In a world that does not try to give positive meaning to old age and suffering, it could become normal to ask to put an end to life and abnormal to want to live despite subtle pressures from all sides. We will have to justify our own survival. The day that an individual must justify his or her own survival must never be allowed to dawn in this country.

The legal framework must enhance the common good. Removing the Criminal Code restrictions against euthanasia and assisted suicide will in the long run deny that common good and the principles that have so enriched this country's jurisprudence. As legislators it is our obligation to reaffirm, not deny, the common good we have been elected to safeguard.

Our denial of euthanasia and assisted suicide must be accompanied by a greater commitment to far greater resources being assigned to palliative care in this country. Death and dying receive the least amount of support from medical research funding agencies. Palliative care is not fairly accessed nor in sufficient quality for all Canadians in all provinces and territories. Likewise greater priorities and resources must be assigned to palliative care in our medical schools than is currently provided.

The distinction drawn in the United States Supreme Court decision in Quill must be seen as critical: When a patient refuses life-sustaining medical treatment, he dies from the underlying fatal disease or pathology; but if a patient ingests lethal medication prescribed by a physician, he is killed by that medication.

In the first instance, the patient is allowed to die. In the second instance, the patient is killed. The distinction is integral. We would be debating the latter, the killing of patients by deliberate action taken to bring about their death. We have rightly accepted the concept of allowing to die. We must not accept the concept of killing.

This House will decide the timing of such a debate. The essence of that debate is as I have described. We must look to all the issues that are before us. We do not have the option to engage in emotionalism.

For us as legislators, there is a great onus to dissect and care for all the ingredients before us before we change a law like this that will have such enormous implications and ramifications for our society, for the continual downward spiral I have been describing.

We are not able to take an easy course. We are not able to participate further in a society that would allow for instant gratification on so many other fronts to be brought to bear on any issue as critical as this.

There must be no fear among people entering hospitals in this country. There must be no concern among seniors who already in many cases are coping as they are with other issues that do not remedy the worst things that come to them. They must feel that their care and their health is their physician's first concern. It is their legislator's first concern.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time for the consideration of the amendment has now expired.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.