Paul Steckle

[Petitions, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with a great number of names to present this afternoon. It is regarding the way government may regulate herbs and teas in the future.

The petitioners are basically asking that their freedom of choice not be ended in terms of how they use those products. The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and ask for their freedom back and not to have herbs and teas defined as vitamins or as drugs.

[Status Of Women, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 70th anniversary of the beginning of one of the most revolutionary legal battles ever to be undertaken. On this day in 1928 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that women were not persons under the British North America Act. As you can imagine women across the empire were disturbed by this decision and as such they took their fight to the British Privy Council. Today we proudly celebrate the final decision made by that body.

Because of the efforts of individuals such as Senator Emily Murphy, women across the commonwealth were granted the status of persons. As a result, in Canada today men and women enjoy equal societal privileges, protection and status under the law. Despite that, there are still many places in the world that women are treated as second class citizens.

As Canadians we must continue to work to secure positive, civil and legal development in nations that have not yet been liberated by the effects of enhanced personal freedom and true gender equality. Indeed it is our duty to lead by example. Canada is and has always been a world leader in these areas. I am proud to support—

[Hockey, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, despite my best effort to maintain a modest demeanour, I find that I am once again compelled to be on my feet for the purposes of informing the House of the tremendous success of groups from within Huron—Bruce.

This past weekend, the Blyth midget and bantam hockey teams both skated their way to victory in the all Ontario championships in their respective divisions. These accomplishments, although not easy, were less than a total surprise to the residents of Blyth. In fact, in recent weeks the local newspapers have carried headlines such as “Midget Bulldogs keep on winning” and “Bantams poised to take OMHA title”.

Without question the success of the two teams is a direct result of the dedication and commitment of the players and coaching staff. I ask the members of the House to join with me in congratulating Blyth's championship teams. Once again Huron—Bruce manages to score the winning goal.

[Technology Partnerships Canada, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let me set the record straight by congratulating successful companies from British Columbia which this government is supporting through Technology Partnerships Canada. Investments to date are over $57 million. This federal support is expected to create more than 4,800 jobs in B.C. These innovative companies include Ballard Power Systems, Avcorp Industries, Western Star Trucks, Dynamotive, Doyle Argosy (Coincard), Starvision Multimedia and Paprican.

Federal government investments are helping to position these B.C. companies as world leaders in the environment, information technologies, aerospace and pulp and paper sectors. Together we are working to support innovation and promote economic growth.

[Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide, March 25th, 1998]

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.

[Petitions, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have before me a petition with about 500 signatures.

Basically my constituents are concerned that the government's intervention in the regulating of certain products is deemed to be interfering in their personal lives.

They are asking the Parliament of Canada to enact legislation against designating herbs, teas and vitamins as drugs. I support this resolution.

[Fisheries, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The sea lamprey marine parasite seriously jeopardizes the recreational, commercial and aboriginal fisheries in the Great Lakes.

Will the minister today commit to adequate funding of the sea lamprey control program to ensure long term sustainability of our Great Lakes fisheries?

[Glammis Flyers Broomball Team, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that there are two reasons for me being on my feet today. First, I am happy to inform the House of the notable achievement of a group of individuals from my riding.

Huron—Bruce is home to, among other places, the small hamlet of Glammis. Although the small population may not place Glammis into the category of a major metropolitan centre, what the citizenry lacks in numbers they more than make up for in spirit.

As a result of that determination, next month the Glammis Flyers Broomball Team is destined for the National Men's Broomball Championships in Regina.

This brings me to my second reason for rising today. At the risk of sounding a little boastful, I am pleased to inform the House that the Glammis Flyers last year won the prestigious Ontario Broomball Championship, defeating teams from Barrie, Teviotdale, Arthur and Ottawa. They were all casualties of the Flyers as they steamed along the road to the national championships.

If the success of the past 50 years is any indication of what lies ahead for the Glammis Flyers, I am confident that they will once again be victorious. I wish the entire team all the best in their endeavours.

[Petitions, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this afternoon to present petitions regarding the ongoing gasoline price saga.

The petitioners are calling upon the Parliament of Canada to adopt legislation which would require gasoline companies to give 30 days' written notice to the Minister of Natural Resources of an impending significant increase in the price of gasoline, that is, an increase of over 1% of the current pump price per litre, and that such notice should also contain the reason or reasons for the increase and when it will take effect.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would understand if she had read her budget that we have already applied $1.5 billion in further transfers to the CHST.

Living in the province of Ontario I am quite aware of the kinds of arguments that are being made. I sympathize with those who are finding health services at a premium these days. The province of Ontario says the reason we are short is because the federal government has made cuts. What the people are not being told, and I can only speak for the province of Ontario as that is where I come from, is that the 30% the province is giving back in tax reductions only apply to those who are paying tax. The ones who are getting the most back are the ones who pay the most taxes and who need it the least. If the province had applied that, the province would have four times the amount of money related to the amount of money that we have withdrawn from health services.

I would suggest that if Ontario and other provinces want to complain, they had better look at how they are doing their own books and be more insightful in those areas.