Mr. Speaker:

I rise today 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 finding 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 of the members of this house, that we have concluded this debate and as such we should put it behind us once and for all.

This issue, Mr. Speaker, is not a new concept. The practice of Euthanasia has been around as long a 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 that 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. Mr. Speaker, 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 text book 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 grouping; 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 feel that I would be remiss Mr. Speaker, 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 they are in the business of promoting health and recovery; they do not want their members to engage in the practice of assisted suicide. The British Medical Association also took this stance as they believe that to permit doctors to kill or to assist in killing would seriously jeopardize the continuation of their traditional role as healers. I feel that Dr. Christoph Hufeland summarized it best, over 200 years ago, when he stated that... "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."

Mr. Speaker, 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 instance in the very recent past that this matter has 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 M-397 made its way to the floor followed, in 1994, by Bill C-215 and Motions M-218 and M-277. Despite the constant attention, the issue continues to be on our agenda. I believe Mr. Speaker, that we should get on with the business of running this country and should stop dwelling on the resolved issues of the past.

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 can also 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 nations 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 to that 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 Mr. Speaker.

My personal views, with respect to euthanasia, are quite simple. It would seem that we have 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 thing. The right to die is defined as the individuals 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 it is 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 of solving human problems. During one of the worlds 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 Mr. Speaker however, if you would like a more recent testimonial you need to 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 a direct action of another human is only the tip of the iceberg. In that same article he suggests that the moral reasoning could be extended to capital punishment both voluntary and involuntary, obligatory suicide, quasi-optional suicide for relief from illness, disability and old age. This Mr. Speaker is absolutely unacceptable.

In my maiden speech in this place, I stated that it is my 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 only be sustained through the use of extreme medical measures, allowing the natural and inevitable process of death to run its course is not necessarily wrong.

I would like to once again 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 today. I feel that striking another Special Committee represents an unnecessary revival of an already concluded matter. The 1997 year end edition of MacLeans Magazine labeled 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 particular "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 Mr. Speaker that I will not be supporting Motion #123.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Statement for Presentation in the

House of Commons

March 25^th, 1998

Euthanasia

By Paul Steckle, M.P.

Huron-Bruce