Raymond John SKELLY

SKELLY, Raymond John, B.A.

Personal Data

New Democratic Party
North Island--Powell River (British Columbia)
Birth Date
July 1, 1941

Parliamentary Career

May 22, 1979 - December 14, 1979
  Comox--Powell River (British Columbia)
February 18, 1980 - July 9, 1984
  Comox--Powell River (British Columbia)
September 4, 1984 - October 1, 1988
  Comox--Powell River (British Columbia)
November 21, 1988 - September 8, 1993
  North Island--Powell River (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 2 of 354)

June 7, 1993

Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River) moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should urgently consider amending the Criminal Code to permit physician assisted suicide when:

(a) it is requested by the patient;

(b) the patient is terminally ill and will experience a painful death;

(c) two independent physicians certify that the patient's condition is terminal; and

(d) the office of the Attorney General for the province has reviewed the case.

He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today is a variation on a number of motions that have been put forward in this House. The member for Fraser Valley West managed to put forward a motion, convince the House to support it on second reading and carry it through to a very useful committee study which dealt with the issue in great depth.

Today is the last opportunity for the House to consider this matter. The matter is also before the Supreme Court of Canada. It has been brought there by a very courageous woman, Sue Rodriguez, who suffers from the disease commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease.

This disease is fatal. As she describes it in The Globe and Mail of May 21, 1993 the reason she has brought this forward is, in her words, because: "I simply do not want to die a gruesome death". It is with a great deal of personal courage and a commitment to others who will

find themselves in the same circumstances that this matter has been brought to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I would also like to thank Nicki Segal, an intern who has done a great deal of work on the research and presentation of the material that we are going to be considering in the House today.

The issue that Sue Rodriguez raises in the Supreme Court of Canada, and which she has taken through every level in the court system, is essentially physician assisted suicide. She is asking that she be given the right to have her physician assist her in committing suicide rather than face the gruesome death this disease will inflict upon her.

Suicide is not illegal. There are those who have sought suicide in order to avoid a degrading and painful death. They have sought to have their physicians assist them with this action.

The other day I came across the case of a woman who had a friend who spent virtually every day in the hospital with her as the woman suffered from the same disease. The patient's physical condition had deteriorated to such a degree that only this friend could communicate with her. Every single day she asked to die. It is an important issue for this House.

Right now the Criminal Code prevents someone from assisting another in a suicide. Apparently the law goes back 101 years. It does not contemplate the realities of our society today where about 75 per cent of deaths are attributable to chronic degenerative diseases such as cancer, AIDS and a variety of other diseases. As we have been more and more successful in preventing certain kinds of diseases, these diseases are forming a major part of the health spectrum. They are characterized by a complete loss of control and quite often by a very serious and painful death.

In some cases, where an individual specifically requests it, people find themselves in a situation in which determining the time at which life ends can improve the quality of life. It can prevent death in great pain and degradation because of the complete loss of control

June 7, 1993

Private Members' Business

when the individual does not have the ability to control even the simplest of life's functions.

The proposal before us is that one more time we ask the government to bring forward an amendment to the Criminal Code. It would probably take section 241(b), which says that no one may assist another to commit suicide, and simply add a number of clauses to it. Those clauses would say that no one could assist someone to commit suicide unless it was a physician assisting a patient.

The physician could assist the patient in committing suicide if the patient were terminally ill, if the patient were mentally competent, if the patient repeatedly asked to be assisted in committing suicide by his or her physician, if the facts were certified by an independent physician, and if the case were reviewed by the office of the Attorney General, and that could be the local coroner, the Crown counsel or whomever.

If we ask this House, ask the government, to pass that motion, it could be put forward quickly. It could resolve the matter raised by Sue Rodriguez and others who ask to be assisted by a physician in committing suicide in order to avoid a degrading and painful death.

This is not an issue for the courts. At every stage the courts have asked Parliament to relieve them from a responsibility which is not truly theirs. In the initial instance through the Supreme Court of B.C. and even before the Supreme Court of Canada, the indication has been that this issue is not the responsibility of the courts.

They ask that Parliament fulfil a responsibility to these people to allow them to undertake an act which should not be illegal. We should not be bound by an antiquated law that does not recognize the changes in our society.

This is probably the last opportunity this Parliament will have to discuss this matter. It is not an issue for the courts. It is an issue for Parliament. It is unfortunate that the government has not put a bill before the House. It would have been extremely useful, on the heels of the motion put by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, for the government to lay before the House a proposal for the consideration of Parliament and for the consideration of the people of Canada. It is now time that the government respond to this appeal. It appears that about 80 per cent of Canadians want something done.

I undertook a survey of the community of Powell River in my riding and the returns from that survey were many. About 75 per cent wanted something to resolve this matter. They are cautious about it. They want stringent controls but they do want to see us aid people who are suffering from a chronic terminal illness that is painful and degrading.

Many of them have seen their loved ones go through this process and they are asking that this Parliament do something. The courts are asking that we do something. Some of the people who are suffering from these illnesses are asking that they be given an opportunity to relieve this suffering.

It is my hope that the court will resolve the problem of Sue Rodriguez. In fact it is my hope that the Supreme Court of Canada will resolve the problem for all Canadians in this very narrow sphere and say that where it has been certified that the person is clearly terminally ill and where the person repeatedly asks, then after an appropriate review the court would permit those physician assisted suicides to occur.

There is an argument for the court to consider. That argument is that Parliament has a responsibility to grant somebody, through a change in legislation, a chance to exercise their rights. I am hoping that it will consider this approach.

The question becomes: Does an individual have this right? Does Sue Rodriguez have the right to ask her physician to assist her in a suicide? Let us look at some of the arguments. There certainly will be arguments put for and against it. We have to consider the fact that a very large number of Canadians would like to see something done by the government in this area.

There is the argument that this is a guarantee of liberty. The charter in section 7 guarantees that the individual has the right of self-determination. If a person does not have the right of self-determination to control their body, to refuse medication and medical treatment then it makes a mockery of the right to self-determination.

There was a recent article in the May 31 issue of Time magazine about Dr. Kevorkian in the United States. Dr. Kevorkian is operating virtually as a free agent, without control. The state of Michigan attempted to put a law in place to curtail his activity. The court has now overturned that and said that it is a denial of a person's right

to self-determination to commit suicide. That was the end of it.

That law has now been overturned and it looks as if Kevorkian can continue his practice, without any control whatsoever, over the kinds of activities in which he has been involved. This is unacceptable and really not a solution at all.

The argument is that this is a guarantee of liberty, that this legislation, if the government would accept it, would give Sue Rodriguez and a host of other Canadians who wish to pursue a physician assisted suicide the opportunity to be relieved from future pain and degradation and to have the right to control one's body. It is the right to avoid pain and suffering, and it is of course the right to avoid the indignity of a complete loss of ability to control any function of life.

When my colleague asks what right do they have, they do have rights. There is a right to liberty. There is a right to self-determination. There is a right to control one's body. There is a right to avoid pain and suffering. There is a right to avoid loss of dignity and there is even a right to commit suicide. The latter is not illegal. If a person wants another to assist them to commit suicide, we must consider this.

I would like to put forward another argument. The court originally dismissed this but it is certainly worthy of consideration. It is discriminatory, if there is an individual who is handicapped and one who is not, if the one individual who is handicapped by a chronic debilitating disease wishes to commit suicide, they may be impaired and unable to carry out that function without the assistance of a physician or someone else, preferably a physician.

There is a solid argument that one class of citizen because they are not disabled can in fact carry this out and another class of citizen who because of their disability may be competent mentally but unfortunately physically are unable to carry out the task competently. We wind up with a situation where we have created two classes of people by a law which essentially discriminates.

I would like the House to consider this legislation as empowerment, the ability of individuals to exert their

Private Members' Business

own self-determination over their lives. These people are going to die, there is no question about it. They are going to die a painful and degrading death and they have made a decision that they wish to determine the time their life will end. Unfortunately, we remove that empowerment from them. We say that we know best. In this day and age I really think we must reconsider the current law.

We need to examine this issue, especially this narrow issue put in front of us by Sue Rodriguez. We must empower an individual who is in a very terrible set of circumstances. We must give them the power to exert some control over their lives, even if it is to relieve themselves of suffering and degradation. We must give that empowerment to them.

The ironic thing with Sue Rodriguez is that the progress of her disease will render her completely incapacitated. She will not be able to commit suicide and she will not be able to communicate. She will still be conscious but unfortunately unable to do anything.

If we were to pass a law that permitted physician assisted suicide and Sue Rodriguez and her physician agreed on the circumstances when the suicide would be carried out, Sue Rodriguez's life would be longer. She would be able to live longer. It is an irony. If she is going to commit suicide she will have to do it sooner, when she is capable of controlling the circumstances and doing it effectively, which means her life will be shorter unless she can use the assistance of a physician. It is not just Sue Rodriguez, it is all other Canadians who find themselves in this circumstance and who wish to end their lives in order to prevent that pain and suffering.

We could be in a position to extend their lives by amending that legislation.

I would also like to cite the case of Dr. Kevorkian in the United States.

Sue Rodriguez has a commitment from a physician regardless of the outcome. Whether Parliament or the government puts forward legislation in this House, whether the Supreme Court gives her the right, a physician has said that he will assist her to commit suicide. Ultimately this is a humanitarian act.

Private Members' Business

We have created a situation because the law is no longer relevant. This law is not relevant. The needs of society and the needs of people will begin to find ways to circumvent it to meet a very basic need.

We will lose control because we do not have any guidelines, for instance, in the arrangement between Sue Rodriguez and her physician or with the next case or the next one. There are no controls over Kevorkian types.

However we could set some very stringent controls; that you need to be terminally ill, that you need to be mentally competent, and you need to ask repeatedly to be assisted in committing suicide so that you can extend your life. Ultimately you would need to have it reviewed by an independent physician and by the Attorney General. Then some controls are placed over this type of situation.

I do not think we can create a situation where we provide disrespect for the law, where we are unable to enforce it. Physicians are not charged and convicted in Canada for carrying out this kind of activity. Therefore the law is already held in disrepute. It does not meet the needs of the people.

Sue Rodriguez has gone a step further and says: "I have made the arrangements if the court and Parliament are not able to meet our needs". We must do something about this. I am sure it would pass this House in short order if the government could bring forward a piece of legislation that would meet the needs of people.

The arguments against it are interesting. They fall into five categories. Murder is still murder. The issue of murder is still murder if you look at the definition. I guess the five basic points that the critics of it bring out is that murder is still murder. In this case that is not it and I will deal with that at length at a later date.

Another point is that Nazi Germany ran an euthanasia program and that we are heading in that direction. Nothing could be more false and misleading. This is a democracy. It is one of the most sensitive and successful democracies in the world.

The kind of activity we are looking at is not destroying people's lives because they do not meet the social agenda. We are responding to the requests to be able to be assisted with a suicide. We want to empower those people to control their lives.

We cannot argue against a religious conviction that says that no matter what, God created life and God has the ultimate choice as to when it will end. If a person holds those convictions you cannot deal with the issue if you totally ignore the situation that when a person's life is going to end anyway, and it is going to end with pain and degradation, we do have an opportunity to control it.

They say this is the slippery slope. This is the fourth argument. Opponents say that if we do this then we will end up lining up the elderly and finishing them off because it will be cheaper for our health care system. The argument is that we will move from there to other forms of incapacity. We cannot argue that. These are individuals asking for a right and asking to be able to time their lives.

The fifth argument is one of the most interesting ones and it comes from Dr. John Scott at the Elizabeth Bruyere Hospital. I guess one of the key points in his debate against it is this. He says: "If we put in a euthanasia system, even doctor assisted suicide, we will get into a situation where the Netherlands provide no money to hospice care and Great Britain which does not permit physician assisted suicide or euthanasia does provide money for hospice care".

This argument is completely false. Ultimately this caring society is concerned about health care. It is concerned about properly funding hospices for the same reason it would give Sue Rodriguez empowerment and the right to self-determination.

If an individual wishes to end his or her life in a hospice situation we have an obligation and a responsibility to make sure that health care spending provides the opportunity to do that.

This is the last chance. Eighty per cent of Canadians want to see something done about this. Sue Rodriguez and her physician will do something about it, whether we permit it or not. I think respect for the law is critical and respect for the rights of other human beings is critical in this issue.

Full View Permalink

June 7, 1993

Mr. Skelly (North Island -Powell River):

Mr. Speaker, 39 Liberals were missing on the NAFTA vote in here and the Liberals voted with the Conservatives to support the NAFTA bill. This is what is actually destroying the tech-

June 7, 1993

Government Orders

Full View Permalink

June 1, 1993

Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island -Powell River):

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I attended today was to listen to the Minister of Communications speak in the House. I find it stimulating and invigorating.

I am really amazed by his ability to illustrate oxymorons, probably the best examples of contradictions in terms that have been heard anywhere. One of them, of course, is Progressive Conservative and the other is Conservative credulity. Maybe we will have something more entertaining from him later on in the day as he rises again in this fruitless endeavour.

The Minister of Communications on these amendments simply fails to recognize the efforts of my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap in trying to protect Canadian employment. The motions before us are concerns yet the minister instantly dismisses them as fortunes of war. BC Telephone company laid off 820 employees because of the policies of the Conservative government. This is irrelevant to the Minister of Communications and I am sure to the entire Conservative government.

The issues in the amendments of my colleague have been put forward again and dismissed out of hand. I love the minister's presentation to this House. He says not to worry about building these kinds of protections into the legislation through these amendments. "Trust me. Your cheque is in the mail. We will take care of you."

We have been taken care of by this particular government for the last nine years. If there is anything left of Canada when it is finished at the end of this term there will be a lot of very surprised Canadians.

The amendments before us today put forward by my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap are designed to protect Canadian employment in this legislation and in this industry. He also points out that there is a very real opportunity to protect and enhance Canadian culture, something the Conservative government has simply sold down the river with everything else in this country.

The issue before us today has been very interestingly described by the Minister of Communications as not being Americanization of yet another Canadian industry, driving in an enormous wedge. We know we have been condemned by the degree of foreign ownership. Previous Liberal governments allowed it to expand to enormous proportions.

Most British Columbians regret that GT&E controls the BC Telephone Corporation.

When the NDP government was there from 1972-75 it tried to deal with that anomaly to enhance and improve the positions of Canadians and British Columbians with BC Tel. Unfortunately the Liberal government under Pierre Trudeau completely thwarted that effort but in the thwarting of it he did not sell it down the river the way the Conservatives have done.

We are faced with a foreign-owned corporation in British Columbia whose American ownership levels are really offensive to British Columbians. We would like to see that changed.

The previous Liberal government under Pierre Elliott Trudeau blocked the NDP government in BC from strengthening the Canadian position in that company. Now we find the Minister of Communications says this is a fait accompli anyway so let in Unitel and allow it to sell 25 per cent of its action to AT&T.

We have a situation now where the Conservatives say that we have the Americans in here, the whole thing is lost, let us get a war going between the giants of the United States-GT&E and American Telephone and Telegraph. Let them fight for jurisdiction and control of

Canada and then we Canadians will benefit from some kind of fall down there.

That is absolutely nonsense. If these people were Canadians and they had one iota of concern for Canada they would begin to turn this thing around and stop the cancerous growth of foreign ownership in this country.

I find the minister's presentation to this House absolutely offensive that we could afford even further sellouts to the Americans. It is absolutely wrong and they are going to get crucified on this issue.

I congratulate my colleague for the amendments he has put forward and the critical issues he has addressed in these amendments. One is the protection of Canadian employment, which the minister and the Conservative government just dismiss as an irrelevant issue, turn over as a casualty to market forces, privatization, deregulation and the trade agreements. "Oh well, we can have jobless recovery because we will have a recovery. We can get rid of Canadian jobs." He said that in the House. It is absolutely disgusting.

The unfortunate thing is that we are looking at a situation where this attitude of the Conservative government is to sell this country to the United States through the Canada-U.S. trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement, the whole strategy behind privatization and deregulation is simply to create an environment where there can be an economic union with the United States, where Canada becomes a Puerto Rico, where American companies are the dominant forces in transportation, communication, manufacturing and delivery of services.

It is unfortunate that we do not have a clear statement from the other opposition party in this House that it would reverse it and not follow the trends of the previous Liberal government of continuing the expansion of foreign control of Canada, but that it would get rid of those trade agreements, not implement them in spite of what has happened in this House with the Conservative government, that it would reverse the role

Government Orders

of privatization and deregulation which has seriously harmed Canada.

Full View Permalink

June 1, 1993

Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to again express the concerns that have been expressed by the previous speakers on this legislation.

I note that the minister took the time to rise briefly to comment on the amendment proposed by my colleague. That amendment basically sees measures coming forward again to transfer the cost of the basic telephone system from the telephone company to the owner.

The minister rose in the House to try to assure everyone that things are just fine and none of these matters that concern us will come to pass. In reality I think the concerns we have are certainly valid. Other attempts by the government to assure the opposition and the people of Canada that they have nothing to worry about and that this government has their best interests in mind have certainly proven false. It has inflicted great harm in some quarters.

This amendment would allow the suppliers of services to avoid the cost of providing the inside servicing to purchasers of the telephone services. I see this as contrary to what the minister is saying. It is the natural consequence of what this government has done. I think

Government Orders

this government has made sure that Canadian companies will no longer be major players in this as time goes by.

It reminds me a great deal of the Canadian airlines arrangement where this government seems interested in permitting an American carrier to take over control of a Canadian carrier. Within a decade down the road we will be looking at American domination of an air transportation system. Those are the fears of my constituents. That is what my constituents are telling me.

We have watched this government open up the telephone service in Canada to Unitel. Now we have two competing agencies supplying telephone service, a basic public utility. As soon as Unitel obtained that right it sold a major portion of its action to AT&T in the United States, which is probably the largest dominator of telecommunications in North America. I am given to understand it has an enormous surplus of capacity and we will be running that capacity through the United States.

That is bound to create enormous cost problems for Canadian companies providing Canadian telecommunications services. Our telecommunications companies in Canada will attempt to rationalize costs by laying off Canadians and trying to bring their costs down. They will try to stop providing services to Canadians as this motion points out by eliminating responsibilities that those companies previously undertook.

In this motion before us the opposition is challenging the government on its national telecommunications policy. It would stop offences like the bill before us. It would stop the kind of activity where we see Unitel being given access to the Canadian telecommunications system and the AT&T through Unitel being given access to it.

It is a very clear indication that in the telecommunications field this Conservative government is looking at creating a common market in North America that as time goes by will grow and allow the Americans to dominate it. It will turn Canada into another Puerto Rico. We can see the end result of this in the telecommunications system laying off hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of telecommunications workers in Canada and driving up the cost of basic telephone service to consumers.

We have seen this in the transportation system. We have seen this in the North American free trade agreement. This government is selling Canada down the river

June 1, 1993

Government Orders

to the United States. If this government lasts much longer in office we are going to look like Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico may even look better.

Full View Permalink

May 25, 1993

Mr. Skelly (North Island -Powell River):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I pointed out, the position of the Conservative Party on the trade agreement is also crystal clear as is indicated in the response to the amendments today. The Conservative Party is the author of these two sell-out agreements. They clearly state that they will implement them if they are re-elected in the next

federal election. The North American free trade agreement and the Conservative position is absolutely clear.

The third position is the position of the Liberal Party which we have considered at length on the amendments tonight in this House and on many other occasions while it is being debated across the country. The position of the Liberal Party in trade agreements is the same position as the Conservative Party with a few exceptions.

First, in the House of Commons the Liberals will vote against these amendments and the bill to implement the North American trade agreement because the bill is flawed. The Liberals know that the Conservative Party will use its majority government to pass the amendments we are considering right now and to pass the trade bill in total.

During the next federal election when the people of Canada ask Liberal candidates where they stand on the North American free trade agreement, the Liberals will say: "We voted against NAFTA in the House of Commons, but the Conservative government used its majority to pass it."

The question to ask these Liberals candidates is if they form the government after the next election, will they ratify the North American trade agreement. If a Liberal government does not ratify the NAFTA agreement after the next election-

Full View Permalink