Marlene Jennings

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, please remind me when I have two minutes left.

I would like to announce to my colleagues in the House of Commons that the Liberal critic will not be voting in favour of this private member's bill by the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. I would like to thank her for raising this important issue. I personally think it is such an important and complex matter that a private member's bill is not the right vehicle to engage the public debate that this issue deserves. I would like to read a letter that the Canadian Medical Association addressed to my colleague, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. A copy of this letter was sent to all hon. members. It sums up my concerns about this issue. The letter reads,

Madame,

The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has been very interested in and concerned about the progress of Bill C-384 in the House of Commons. The House is at third reading of a bill that would, in some circumstances, allow a physician to aid a person to die with dignity if that person has provided free and informed consent. The CMA's policy is clear. “Canadian physicians should not participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide.”

As the attached policy notes, euthanasia and assisted suicide must be distinguished from the withholding or withdrawal of inappropriate, futile or unwanted medical treatment or the provision of compassionate palliative care, even when these practices shorten life. The CMA does not support euthanasia or assisted suicide and urges its members to uphold the principles of palliative care. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are opposed by almost every national medical association and prohibited by the law codes of almost all countries.

Our policies also clearly state that “the CMA recognizes that it is the prerogative of society to decide whether the laws dealing with euthanasia and assisted suicide should be changed”, but that there are some concerns that must be addressed before any changes are made. These include:

1. Adequate palliative-care services must be made available to all Canadians. In 1994, our members approved a motion that Canadian physicians should uphold the principles of palliative care. The public has clearly demonstrated its concern with our care of the dying. The provision of palliative care for all who are in need is a mandatory precondition to the contemplation of permissive legislative change. Efforts to broaden the availability of palliative care in Canada should be intensified.

2. Suicide-prevention programs should be maintained and strengthened where necessary. Although attempted suicide is not illegal, it is often the result of temporary depression or unhappiness. Society rightly supports efforts to prevent suicide, and physicians are expected to provide life-support measures to people who have attempted suicide. In any debate about providing assistance in suicide to relieve the suffering of persons with incurable diseases, the interests of those at risk of attempting suicide for other reasons must be safeguarded.

3. A Canadian study of medical decision-making during dying should be undertaken. We know relatively little about the frequency of various medical decisions made near the end of life, how these decisions are made and the satisfaction of patients, families, physicians and other caregivers with the decision-making process and outcomes.

Hence, a study of medical decision making during dying is needed to evaluate the current state of Canadian practice. This evaluation would help determine the possible need for change and identify what those changes should be. If physicians participating in such a study were offered immunity from prosecution based on information collected, as was done during the Remmelink commission in the Netherlands, the study could substantiate or refute the repeated allegations that euthanasia and assisted suicide take place.

4. Consideration should be given to whether any proposed legislation can restrict euthanasia and assisted suicide to the indications intended. Research from the Netherlands and Oregon demonstrate that a large percentage of patients who request aid in dying do so in order to maintain their dignity and autonomy.

If euthanasia or assisted suicide or both are permitted for competent, suffering, terminally ill patients, there may be legal challenges, based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to extend these practices to others who are not competent, suffering or terminally ill. Such extension is the “slippery slope” that many fear.

This statement has been developed to help physicians, the public and politicians participate in any re-examination of the current legal prohibition of euthanasia and assisted suicide and arrive at a solution in the best interests of Canadians. The CMA is in favour of improving access to palliative care and suicide prevention programs, undertaking a study on how medical decisions are made near the end of life and having a comprehensive public debate on the matter, but we cannot support Bill C-384.

Sincerely,

Anne Doig, MD, CCFP, FCFP,

President

As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, I understand and deeply respect the desire of the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île to bring this matter forth in the House of Commons, and I sympathize with her. I think this is a debate that we should have, but it should be initiated by the government.

I am critical, however, of this government and previous governments of my political stripe for not having had the moral fortitude to take the necessary steps to allow such a debate to take place and not undertaking such a study, as suggested and recommended by the Canadian Medical Association.

I truly believe that it is an issue that many Canadians, many families are grappling with and an idea that they are finding very painful to think about. Government has a responsibility to help Canadians deal with this issue, to see what the actual state is and whether or not this issue can be dealt with in a way that provides dignity and serenity, and also to provide a sense of security that there will not be mistakes made if legislative measures are in fact taken.

As I have said, I blame the government but I also blame my own political party, which formed government for several terms, for not having had the moral courage to deal with this.

[Afghanistan, October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, if Afghanistan is ever to become a stable and secure state, it is our duty to ensure that the Canadian Forces lead by example. The honour and dignity of the men and women who serve under our flag is at stake. Any doubts raised must be met with just and transparent measures, not stonewalling by the government.

Why will the Conservatives not allow Richard Colvin to testify before the Military Police Complaints Commission? What are they trying to cover up?

[Afghanistan, October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the government wants to hide when the Prime Minister learned about the case.

The dignity and honour of the men and women who serve under our flag deserve to have any doubts about them treated seriously. If we want the Afghan mission to have any chance of success, it is absolutely crucial that the Canadian Forces accurately reflect the Canadian values of justice and transparency.

Will the government allow Richard Colvin to testify before the Military Police Complaints Commission?

[Privilege, October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points. First, the question of privilege raised by my hon. colleague is in fact serious and merits a serious look and examination by the Speaker. That is the first thing.

Second, the allegation or claim which has now been raised by the Conservative member that the Liberal chair of the ethics committee has demonstrated a bias is completely without foundation.

The member has raised an issue that there are allegations of transgressions by a certain minister, the Minister of Natural Resources with regard to the code of conduct for public office holders with regard to electoral financing legislation and with regard to the Lobbyists Registration Act.

The government itself, through the Minister of Transport confirmed that in fact there were certain events that took place and that it was completely unacceptable.

For this member to call on the chair of the ethics committee to recuse himself should the matter of the conduct of the Minister of Natural Resources come before that committee is simply without foundation and without grounds.

When one speaks to allegations, that it is not evidence of any prejudice. It is simply a statement of fact that there are allegations, that certain acts did take place which were confirmed by the government Minister of Transport and that there are people who are concerned that these may be violations of certain legislation and certain codes, period.

[Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare, October 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate on Motion M-354, which was moved by my colleague, the member for Scarborough Southwest. I congratulate her on her initiative. I would also like to thank and congratulate the NDP member representing the riding of Burnaby—Douglas for agreeing to withdraw his own motion so that my colleague from Scarborough Southwest could move hers.

For the sake of the people who do not know how these things work, I want to explain that there is a draw for private members' business. Each member is given a rank, and items are considered in order of rank. The member for Burnaby—Douglas had a lower rank than the member for Scarborough Southwest, which meant that my colleague had a greater chance of having her motion debated in the House than the member for Burnaby—Douglas did. I congratulate and thank him.

I just recently became interested in animal cruelty and animal welfare issues. I have to admit that I was like many Canadians. I have had cats, dogs and birds. I treated them well, but was unaware of existing Canadian and international legislation. Then some of my fellow citizens came to see me, people from my riding who were passionate about animal welfare. They wanted to strengthen and modernize Canadian legislation. They are the ones who ignited my passion.

Currently, the importance of animal welfare is not recognized on a global scale. I think that the parliamentary secretary mentioned that earlier in his remarks.

Adopting a universal animal rights declaration would create not a legal obligation but a moral one for governments, prompting them to take steps to ensure that animals in their respective countries are protected.

People's attitudes and behaviour toward animals mirror their treatment of other people. Animals cannot defend themselves, so we must act on their behalf.

There is both scientific consensus and public acknowledgement that animals feel pain and can suffer.

I believe that we must do all we can to prevent cruelty to animals and minimize their suffering.

Moreover, responsible, cruelty-free treatment of animals has a positive impact on land use, climate change, pollution, the water supply, habitat preservation and biodiversity. I am not alone in believing this; other members of the House have said so, and scientific studies back up these claims.

Over a billion of the world's people owe their living to animals. Many other people have pets. Taking proper care of animals reduces the risk of transmitting diseases to humans and of food poisoning.

MPs wore orange ribbons yesterday to recognize World Animal Week which will officially kickoff next week on October 4 and is a yearly reminder to make the world a safer, more compassionate place for all animals. It is a celebration of animals that helps to raise awareness and standards of animal welfare worldwide. It is also a chance to make the world a safer, more compassionate place for all animals.

As was mentioned by the parliamentary secretary of the government, the Chief Veterinary Officer of Canada is a member of the World Animal Health Organization and in May 2007 that organization voted unanimously in favour of adopting a UDAW, a universal declaration for animal welfare. Within Canada, UDAW is supported by many organizations and I would like to mention a few: the World Society for the Protection of Animals, Humane Society of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and its many member societies, Animal Alliance of Canada, Global Action Network, British Columbia, Ontario and Canadian SPCAs, and the SPCA de l'Estrie.

Those are just some Canadian organizations that support Canada helping to develop and adopt a universal declaration for animal welfare across the world. There are some two million people around the world who have signed petitions to this effect.

I am not going to go on much longer except to say that I would encourage my colleagues to support this motion. It appears that the government will support the motion as it has been amended, a friendly amendment, accepted by the sponsor of the motion, the member for Scarborough Southwest.

I heard what the member from the Bloc had to say and I agree with him. Our Criminal Code provisions need to be modernized, those which deal with the protection of animals and those that deal with cruelty to animals. They are two centuries behind. However, adopting this motion, I believe, will help further stimulate debate and interest into the whole issue of how we protect our animals both here in Canada and outside of Canada.

I believe we will gain more and more support to bring pressure to the government, whichever party is there, if it is not the current party which acts, then whatever party follows this one and forms the government, to modernize our Criminal Code provisions dealing with cruelty to animals and to modernize our regulations dealing with the transport of animals.

Under our regulations animals can be transported for 52 consecutive hours. The United States has modernized its regulations regarding the transportation of animals and in the United States animals can only be transported for 28 hours. That is a major difference. Those extra hours would have a major impact on how stressful the animals are mentally and physically. It would definitely have an impact on the health of those animals and subsequently, if they are animals that go into the food chain, it could have an impact on humans themselves.

I am hopeful that the House will adopt the motion unanimously. It would send a powerful statement to the government but also to Canadians that their elected officials are serious about improving our laws and regulations to better protect our animals.

I want to thank again my super colleague from Scarborough Southwest for taking up this issue, for championing this issue. She has done a wonderful job. I want to thank again the member for Burnaby—Douglas for being such a great guy on this, for understanding the importance. It was more important to get this motion debated and voted on in the House quickly than to have so-called ownership of it.

Everyone here who supports this will own this motion. Everyone here who supports this motion and who votes for this motion can proudly go back to their ridings and tell their constituents, “This is a motion that I supported, this is a motion that I want the rest of you to get onboard with and help me push forward with the government”.

[Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare, October 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague from Scarborough Southwest to explain why she stated that should the Canadian government develop and adopt a universal declaration on animal welfare, UDAW, it would not be binding.

[Points of Order, October 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I properly, wholeheartedly and unreservedly withdraw the statement I made that the Conservatives told a lie and repeated the lie. I apologize with all my heart for having made that statement. I will not repeat it again in the House.

[Points of Order, October 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the first point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary. I simply want to say that I said every member of the Conservative Party was repeating a lie. Mr. Speaker, should you rule that it was unparliamentary language for me to say that the Conservatives were knowingly repeating something they knew to be untrue and therefore were repeating a lie, I will apologize with no reservations.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2009]

The Conservative member stated that I had said people were lying.

Effectively, I said the Conservatives have been going around saying that the Liberal 360-hour single standard for EI eligibility would cost Canadian taxpayers over $4 billion. I said the Parliamentary Budget Officer did an analysis and clearly stated that the Liberal proposal would cost $1.148 billion.

I then said that for the Conservatives, after the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report and conclusion, to continue to state, as they have been doing, that our proposal would be $4 billion is, to repeat, a lie day after day after day. If the Speaker rules that that is unparliamentary, I will apologize.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, do you want me to answer my Bloc colleague's question first and then respond to the point of order that was raised? All right.

At the time, on the recommendation of the Auditor General of Canada in the 1980s, employment insurance contributions were paid into our government's general revenue accounts. These payments increased revenues. There were social programs, infrastructure and so on.

In 1993, the Liberal government was faced with a $42 billion deficit left by the Conservatives, just as today they are leaving us with who knows how big—