Brent's Blog
July 28, 2010
Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to tour Israel on a Parliamentary Mission sponsored by the Canada-Israel Committee. The generosity and hospitality of the Canadian-Israel Committee is without parallel!
The Mission allowed me an "insider's" view of both the fascinating country and the ever elusive quest for peace in the Middle East. To state that the country's history is intriguing is a gross understatement. The religious sites in old Jerusalem, Jewish, Muslim and Christian are inspiring. As a Christian, however, the historical sites near the Sea of Galilee and along the Jordan River, where Christ lived, taught and began his ministry, are equally intriguing.
The primary purpose of my mission, however, was to gain some insight into the political and military conflict, historic and current, between the Israelis and the Arabs. Canada, the United States and the United Nations all support a "Two-State Solution", in which the existing Israel would be partitioned to allow displaced Palestinians a sovereign nation of their own. On the surface, this proposal is fair, reasonable and would conform to the original UN post-World War II Declaration following the end of the British Mandate in Palestine.
However, what appears to be fair and reasonable in theory remains impracticable and increasingly complicated in reality.
Israel has legitimate security concerns. Israel is a small country. It is predominantly Jewish and is surrounded by four predominately Muslim, Arab states. If Israel cannot protect its citizens against terrorist attacks from Islamist fundamentalists operating within its own borders, how can it possibly defend itself from rocket attacks launched from a fifth neighbouring sovereign Islamist state??
Equally problematic is the issue of who actually speaks for the Palestinians. Certainly, Fatah has at least de facto control in the West Bank. Fatah's leader, President Mahmoud Abbas is a moderate and genuinely wants to work towards peace with Israel. However, radical factions do exist and operate and would not agree to, nor comply with, any comprehensive peace agreement with Israel. Moreover, Hamas currently has control in Gaza and has no interest in denouncing terrorism to further its goal of annihilating the Jewish State. Hamas' links to Hezbollah and a supply chain of weapons from Iran via Lebanon is the precedent for a naval blockade to keep weapons out of Gaza, which tragically included an Israeli attack on a Gaza bound flotilla in June, which left nine people dead.
Without any moderate and unified leadership from the Palestinian Authority, meaningful peace remains as elusive as ever.
This complicated and protracted dispute was once a battle over religion but today has morphed into something that is as much about land, specifically homeland, as it is about the superiority of one's religion. Both the Jews and the Muslim Palestinians have, in their own minds, a homeland in the historical Palestine (modern State of Israel). Each, clearly had control of the territory at various times in history. Each claims the land to be "home". Their goals and certainly their methods appear to be irreconcilable.
This is tragic as both peoples trace their origins to Abraham and equally tragic, the tenets of their respective religions have been compromised, if not occasionally abandoned, to advance their respective claims to statehood.
In the Middle East, there is no peace, only a temporary absence of war. As recent events have demonstrated, even that can be precarious.
Brent
_______________________________________________________________________
June 16, 2010
In my short time as the Member of Parliament for Edmonton- St. Albert, I have focused on issues that matter to my constituents, including the "Safe Streets and Safe Communities" agenda of this government. I have always tried to avoid political games. The same cannot be said about the Deputy Leader of the NDP.
Libby Davies took it upon herself to condemn the State of Israel before any independent reports had been released regarding the June 7th events off the coast of Gaza. At a rally hosted by the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement in Vancouver, MP Libby Davies was caught on camera stating that Israel's 1948 borders are borders of occupation! Incredibly, she continued by stating that she did not support the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement and then immediately reversed her position.
Why is Ms. Davies so quick to condemn Israel and denounce the only democracy in the Middle East? The Deputy Leader of the NDP and her Party should be ashamed. The excuse provided, that she was confused, is not believable. Ms. Davies should apologize to the House of Commons, to Israel and to Canada. Further, she should step down as Deputy Leader and wait for the independent investigation of the June 7th incident to be completed. If the Leader of the NDP was serious when he stated that her opinions are not shared by his caucus, then Jack Layton should have no problem accepting her resignation.
Canada has long supported a two-state solution. Irresponsible statements like those made by Ms. Davies undermine Canada's position and, ultimately, the peace process. It is safe to say that most, if not all, Canadians wish to see an end to the escalating tensions in the Middle East and I hope that Ms. Davies will rethink her position on this issue and make an effort to be more informed. Prime Minister Harper can say with confidence that his Government believes in Israel's fundamental right to exist and, until Ms. Davies is removed from the NDP's inner circle, Mr. Layton cannot say the same.
Brent
_______________________________________________________________________
May 21, 2010
Earlier this month, I spent an entire day in a wheelchair as part of this year's Chair-Leader event on Parliament Hill organized by the Canadian Paraplegic Association (CPA). The event launched Spinal Cord Injury and CPA Awareness Month.
Along with approximately 25 of my fellow MPs, I used a wheelchair for one day, as I went about my daily routines and experienced some of the barriers faced by persons with mobility disabilities in accessing various parts of Parliament. Many of the CPA's members also participated in this event and appreciated our commitment to and involvement in the work of their organization.
I was struck by the enormity of the challenge. Accomplishing simple tasks seemed difficult at best and required some quick thinking and assistance from others. Simple tasks such as finding a wheel chair accessible washroom or navigating through a door-well, which is only slightly wider than the wheelchair, are considerable challenges. Pushing a wheelchair for an entire day up and down Parliament "Hill" is also physically very demanding. Participating in this event allowed me to experience first-hand the daily barriers faced by those with a mobility disability.
For the past 65 years, the CPA has supported over 100,000 Canadians on their journey to recovery by offering peer support and other core services from the moment their "new normal" life begins. At least 1,200 new spinal cord injuries occur each year and this number will increase as our population ages. The CPA will continue to assist Canadians as they learn to live with their mobility disability.
Brent
________________________________________________________________________________
April 28, 2010
I am pleased to report that Canadians will have the opportunity to hear a full and complete debate on Bill C-391. After an excruciating 90 minute meeting, Liberal MP Mark Holland's motion was defeated and the Opposition finally agreed to a balanced and fair witness list for Bill C-391.
Brent
_______________________________________________________________________
April 26, 2010
On November 4th, 2009, Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of the long-gun registry), passed a narrow vote at Second Reading with eight Liberal MPs breaking party ranks to support Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner's Private Member's Bill. This Bill was referred to the Public Safety Committee and witnesses are scheduled to be heard beginning May 4th.
Unfortunately, Canadians may not have an opportunity to hear a full and complete debate on Bill C-391. In a Public Safety Committee meeting originally intended to discuss possible witnesses, Liberal MP Mark Holland brought a motion to set the witness list in favour of the Opposition. Only three of the 33 proposed witnesses are in favour of the repeal of the long-gun registry, hardly the basis for a balanced and fair debate on the critical issues and concerns many Canadians have about the long-gun registry.
I find it disturbing and shocking that the Opposition would refuse to allow witnesses who support Bill C-391 to testify. This Bill deserves a full public hearing at Committee and a full public hearing requires a balanced list of witnesses, not a witness list dictated by the Opposition.
Over the last several weeks, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has publicly stated that he will "whip the vote" and defeat the Bill when it is voted on next, a highly unusual move considering MPs are traditionally free to vote their conscience or according to constituents' wishes on Private Members' Bills.
Canadians have made it clear that they want the immediate repeal of the long-gun registry. The registry has not cracked down on crime as promised and unfairly targets hunters, farmers and other law-abiding citizens. However, as recent events have shown, the fight is far from over and the Opposition Members of the Public Safety Committee remain steadfast in their support of this multi-billion dollar boondoggle.
I can assure you that I will continue to advocate on behalf of this Bill at Committee but we need all Canadians to urge the Opposition to support Bill C-391.
What do you think? If you would like to speak with me about the long-gun registry, or any other issue, do not hesitate to contact me at (780) 459-0809 or by email at RathgB1@parl.gc.ca.
Brent
________________________________________________________________________________
March 22, 2010
The federal government recently released a discussion paper summarizing the Justice Committee's review of Canada`s Impaired Driving Laws, including the issue of random breath testing.
The evidence in favour of random breath testing is compelling and Canadians are justifiably concerned about impaired driving. In 2006, the most recent year of available data, it is estimated that impaired driving claimed 1,278 lives - more than twice as many as all other homicides combined! Every impaired driving-related death is one too many and repeat offenders must be severely dealt with.
On the other hand, random breath testing may entail giving police a far too intrusive tool that could easily be abused. It will result in a direct challenge to our protection against "unreasonable search and seizure and ``arbitrary detention" under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Questions have also been raised about the "randomness" of random breath testing and the possibility it will lead to profiling.
Our Government is working hard to repeal the long-gun registry based on the premise that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry a long gun without state interference. Are we comfortable letting police pull over drivers at random, detain them, and demand they do a breath test without reasonable suspicion? We must move slowly and cautiously as we debate the ramifications of random breath testing and the power it gives to police in the context of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter.
The question is: do the benefits of random breath testing outweigh the loss of our personal rights and freedoms? As Canadians, are we comfortable handing this kind of power to the police or, in a free and democratic society, should law-abiding citizens be able to go about their business without state interference?
What do you think? If you would like to speak with me about random breath testing, or any other issue, do not hesitate to contact me at 780-459-0809 or by email at RathgB@parl.gc.ca.
To read the entire discussion paper and to respond formally, go to: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/mtpcc-mdccmt/mtpcc.pdf.
Brent
_______________________________________________________________________
March 5, 2010
By the time this blog hits the internet, I will have returned to Ottawa, the Throne Speech and the Budget will have been read in the House of Commons and Canadians from coast to coast to coast will have returned to normal life. The Olympic Experience, however, will be far from being a distant memory!!
My Olympic Experience began last October 30, the same day the Olympic Torch Relay commenced its 45,000 km odyssey in Victoria, British Columbia. To celebrate that event and promote St. Albert as one of the many communities which would form part of the Torch Relay, Mayor Nolan Crouse and I gathered with several hundred students from Leo Nickerson Elementary School to participate in a mini-speed skating relay at Servus Place. I was admittedly terrified, as it had been several years since I had been on skates. Although, my red team finished second to Mayor Crouse's blues, this was truly an appropriate way to start the Olympics and I was grateful that I did not fall!!
In advance of the Torch Relay coming to St. Albert on January 13, I took an Olympic Torch Prototype to many events, schools and nursing homes around our city. Several schools organized Olympic events and mock Opening Ceremonies. The effort that went into these events and the patriotism they inspired was truly remarkable! The torch prototype was photographed at least three thousand times and everywhere I took it, people wanted to be part of the Olympic experience!
January 13, 2010 will be a day St. Albert will long remember. With over 5,000 citizens jammed into the downtown core, playing street hockey, listening to live music and participating in Olympic Events in Lion's Park, the day could only be capped by the arrival of the actual Olympic Torch. I was proud to sing "O Canada" with the Olympic Flame inches from my head!
The Games themselves were truly spectacular. From the first medal won by Jennifer Heil, to the first Gold won by Alexander Bilodeau and of course the inspirational figure skating performance (and Bronze Medal) by the grieving Joannie Rochette, all of Canada's athletes performed with skill, precision and pride in our great country. I was fortunate enough to be at Olympic Place to view live Kevin Martin's gold medal victory in Men's Curling. Martin's Rink includes St. Albert's own Marc Kennedy throwing second stones. Tears welled in my eyes as our flag was raised to the rafters to the tune of "O Canada".
And could there be a more fitting conclusion to the Olympics then a thrilling overtime goal by Sidney Crosby to capture Canada's 14th Goal Medal? I watched the game at Canada Pavilion, the Federal Government's showcase venue to proudly show off Canada's contribution to sport. As you can imagine, the thousands of people gathered there began hugging and high-fiving after Crosby's winning goal, as spontaneous versions of "O Canada" broke out throughout Vancouver (and all of Canada)!!
This has been a wonderful Olympics and I am honoured to have been able to enjoy it as a Member of the Canadian Parliament. We truly did "own the podium"; 14 Gold, 26 Medals and 33 Million very proud Canadians!
Brent
________________________________________________________________________________
January 18, 2010
Recently, we have received numerous, emails and phone calls requesting that I ignore the prorogation of Parliament and return "to work" in Ottawa. This requires a formal response.
It also gives me an opportunity to clarify a comment I allegedly made in the 06/01/2010 edition of the St. Albert Gazette ("MP Defends Prorogation") and repeated in the 13/01/2010 "Our View".
When challenged by reporter Ryan Tumilty that democracy was somehow being abrogated and destroyed by Parliament being prorogued, my response was "Democracy and Parliament are not being sidestepped." I believe I said (and certainly meant to say) "it (Parliament) is only being suspended."
However, substituting the pronoun "they" for the singular "it" completely changes and distorts the substance of my statement.
Of course, I do not believe that democracy is being suspended. Democracy is much broader than the daily sittings of Parliament. The Government continues to govern; Ministers continue to make announcements, as is evidenced by our Government's rapid response to the disaster in Haiti and the Rule of Law is firmly entrenched in Canada.
Thankfully, Democracy continues to operate everyday in Canada.
Now to address the request that I return to Ottawa to fulfill my obligations as Member of Parliament.
I will in fact be returning to Ottawa on January 20 and will be attending regional and national caucus meetings on January 22. The purpose of these meetings is to provide input regarding Canada's Economic Action Plan now that the recession appears to be concluding and economic stability replaces stimulus investment as the overriding economic goal.
The outcome of this process will be outlined during a Throne Speech on March 3 and a more detailed economic statement will be included in a Budget on March 4.
However, even when I am in the riding, and perhaps especially when I am in the riding, I do show up for work and represent my constituents. I meet with constituents every day, seven days a week, at formal appointments and at informal settings at the many community events I attend. We discuss specific constituent issues with Immigration Canada or the Canada Revenue Agency; we also discuss national issues of interest to constituents, such as the state of the economy, the Afghan Mission or problems with the Canadian Justice System.
It is quite improper to suggest that it is only when Parliament is sitting that a Member of Parliament adequately represents his or her constituents.
Remembering, that I was elected to represent the citizens of Edmonton - St. Albert in Ottawa and NOT the other way around, I am constructively using prorogation to host receptions welcoming all new Canadian Citizens in this constituency, hosting a series of roundtables on immigration issues and most notably, organizing two public Town Hall Meetings (February 11, in St. Albert and February 17, in Edmonton) to discuss Canada's Criminal Justice System.
Rest assured that regardless of whether I am in Ottawa or at home in the riding, it is an honour to represent the citizens of Edmonton - St. Albert and I strive to represent the interests of my constituents every day.
Brent
_______________________________________________________________________
November 30, 2009
When I was elected last October, I was quite clear that my first priority was fighting to enact reforms to the Justice System so that families can feel safe in their own communities.
I am proud to report that since last October, I have taken part in making more than a dozen reforms to the Criminal Code that will improve the Justice System for all Canadians. Reforms ranging from cracking down on gangsters doing drive-by shootings, to drug dealers who do business near our children have all been debated by this Parliament. Moreover, limiting the unwarranted sentence credit for time served, ending the Faint Hope Clause and the sentencing discount received for multiple murders, proves that this Government has worked exceptionally hard to make Canada a safer place.
This week, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced a very important reform, which I enthusiastically support. In order to protect children from online predators, it will now be mandatory for Internet Service Providers to report suspected cases of child pornography to an appropriate designated agency. They must also safeguard the evidence if they believe that a child pornography offence has been committed through the use of their internet services.
Currently, these actions are voluntary; these reforms will allow for strict penalties for non-compliance. These important changes will help give police the tools needed to find and stop those who commit these vile acts against our children.
This continues to build upon our previous actions to crack down on pedophiles by raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 and our work to deliver real jail time for child traffickers. It also reaffirms my and our Government's commitment to protect all members of society, notably, the most vulnerable, such as our children.
Brent
November 25, 2009
Earlier this month the House of Commons voted, in a historic move, to end the wasteful Long Gun Registry.
In a vote of 164-137, Members of Parliament from three Political Parties voted to finally stop the unnecessary targeting of law abiding hunters and farmers who own long guns for legitimate reasons.
I am extremely pleased that this Private Members Bill, written by Manitoba Conservative MP, Candice Hoeppner, has passed Second Reading in the House of Commons. In my opinion this important Bill is clear and straightforward and reflects my personal longstanding desire to repeal the Long Gun Registry.
However, this is only one step in the legislative process to make sure that the Long Gun Registry is abolished. The Bill must go through the Public Safety Committee, of which I am a Member. It is with some trepidation that I mention this, as every single Opposition Member of this Committee voted for the status quo of maintaining this ineffective attempt at gun control.
I can assure you that I will advocate on behalf of this Bill at the Committee. However, it is important that all Members of Parliament are reminded constantly that they must deal with this issue. Canadians have spoken loudly and repetitively: they want the immediate repeal of the Long Gun Registry.
Brent
October 29, 2009
Our Duty to Remember
On November 11th we remember the generations of Canada's most courageous who have put their Country before themselves, serving and defending us all. From the First World War, when Canada came of age as a nation at Pascheandale and Vimy Ridge; to the Second, where Canadians fought tyranny on every front. From Juno Beach to the ill fated landing in Dieppe to the liberation of Holland, this cemented Canada's position on the world stage as a guardian of human rights against tyrannical regimes. We came to the defence of democracy in Korea and continue today with our work in Afghanistan and Haiti, the constant has always been the patriotism, duty, and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.
For the rest of us, whose freedom is rooted in the sacrifice of both the past and present generations of veterans, it is our duty to remember. That is why, on the eleventh day of the eleventh month, communities across Canada will come to a standstill at 11 O'Clock. Thousands of families will stand before their local cenotaph to honour those who paid with their lives to protect Canada and her interests.
Each Canadian standing in the cold November air will have memories - some shared, some private - of those who came before us.
Our grandparents and great-grandparents who crossed oceans to fight on the front lines of Europe to break the grip of tyranny. Our sons and daughters who stood firm, keeping an unsteady peace and preparing for the renewed spark of conflict. Our husbands, wives, brothers and sisters who work each day to bring hope and stability to war-torn Afghanistan. Those here at home who make their own sacrifice as they support family members deployed across the country and around the world.
On November 11th we remember these Canadians, past and present, for their heroism, their sacrifice and their protection of Canadian values.
I will be spending my Remembrance Day at the Calder Seniors Centre. I hope to see many of you there. On Remembrance Day in particular, I want to thank those who have served, and who continue to serve our country. I urge you to wear a poppy and take a moment to thank the courageous men and women who have fought for the freedom we all enjoy.
Lest we forget.
Brent
Remembrance Day 2009
10:15 - Visiting with residents at Shepherd's Care Kensington Village before their wreath ceremony
10:45 - Attending the Wreath Laying Ceremony at Calder Senior's Centre
11:45 - Visiting with individuals at the St. Albert Legion after their wreath ceremony
12:45 - Attending the Remembrance Day Levee at the Lieutenant Colonel Phillip L. Debney Armoury Officer's Mess.
______________________________________________________________________
October 15, 2009
I have received a great deal of correspondence and numerous telephone calls expressing concern regarding Private Members' Bill C-428, An Act to Amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement), introduced on June 18th, 2009 by Ruby Dhalla (Brampton--Springdale) of the Liberal Party. This Bill would amend the Old Age Security Act to reduce from ten years to three years the residency requirement for entitlement to a monthly pension.
In order to qualify for OAS, there is a 10 year residency requirement after age 18. If this is met, eligible Canadians can start receiving benefits at age 65. The 10 year requirement period strikes an appropriate balance between an individual's contribution to Canadian society and the economy and his or her access to a lifelong, publicly funded benefit.
It is reasonable to expect that a person live in Canada for a minimum period of time before being granted the right to a lifelong public benefit. The government is taking a fair and responsible approach to providing benefits to seniors.
There are currently 50 social security agreements in place with a wide variety of countries. These allow period of residence and contributions in the other country to be used to meet the 10-year requirement. We continue to work hard to sign more agreements in the future.
At a cost of over $700 million, this proposal is costly and irresponsible and would ultimately be borne by Canadian taxpayers.
As your Member of Parliament, I take your comments and concerns very seriously. I am not persuaded that Ms. Dhalla's proposals are either appropriate or affordable. Unless I am persuaded otherwise, I will not vote in favour of this Bill.
Brent
October 5, 2009
Today, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a Member, will begin a very important study into Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This Section prohibits electronic communication that is "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that the person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of prohibited grounds of discrimination".
I am quite concerned about this particular section of the Act. Any legislation which limits the ability to speak freely without fear of Government reprisal is inappropriate in my view.
While it is important to protect Canadians from discrimination, there are already provisions in the Criminal Code to provide recourse in such matters. In my view, this section of the legislation needlessly limits freedom of speech.
As Voltaire famously said "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
I look forward to a fulsome and comprehensive study of this legislation at the Justice Committee, leading to a conclusion which both protects Canadians from discrimination while maximizing freedom of speech.
Brent
_______________________________________________________________________
September 1, 2009
On Wednesday August 12, 2009, I had the pleasure of spending the afternoon as a guest at the Edmonton Drug Treatment and Community Restoration Court. The EDTCRC, as it is known, is intended to reduce drug related crime through innovative approaches to dealing with offenders.
Watching this collaborative and restorative approach to justice was certainly fascinating.
My interest in observing the Drug Treatment Court in operation stems from my membership on the House of Commons Justice Committee.
Recently, we passed Bill C-15, which if passed by the Senate, would bring in mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealers. It does, however, provide for enhanced access for appropriate offenders to Drug Treatment Courts.
Drug Treatment Court sits every Wednesday starting at 2pm in Courtroom 268 (Provincial Court side of the Law Courts building).
As a former trial lawyer, I was immediately surprised by the informal approach in which the Drug Treatment Court operates. I suspect because the Federal Crown Prosecutor, The Executive Director of the Program and Presiding Judge are almost always the same players, a certain informality and familiarity is clearly established.
Essentially, the participants in the program appear every week and provide an oral report to Judge Darlene Wong as to what activities they have been involved in during the past week (whether they were working or going to school programs and the meetings they have attended in respect to their addictions and any changes in their personal circumstances). The Executive Director then provides a report and applause is earned if the Executive Director verifies that a drug test has produced a negative (passing) result. The Crown Prosecutor then indicates any concerns that she might have regarding future steps and the participant returns to their seat. Interestingly, nobody leaves until the entire docket has completed their progress evaluation.
Following an in-camera meeting with Judge Wong and the other professional participants, I am advised that occasionally a participant is deemed no longer eligible for the program. Ultimately they are sentenced for their crime. However, based on my observations, clearly the participants in the program wish to complete their rehabilitation and avoid sanction for the crimes that have brought them before the Courts in the first place.
As a practicing lawyer who spent a great deal of time in the courts early in my legal career, I was certainly struck by the non adversarial nature of the Drug Treatment Court. Although it appears that sometimes there is more social work than law being practiced, it is difficult to argue with the successful results of the program. The vast majority of the participants, on the day that I observed court, were sticking to their programs for rehabilitation, attending meetings and either working or seeking gainful employment or educational opportunities.
Anecdotally, many participants spoke glowingly of the program and how it changed, and in some cases saved, their lives.
Initially the Federal funding for the Restorative Drug Treatment Court was for a four year period ending in 2009. It has been extended conditionally ending on March 31, 2010. This extension was to give the Federal Government more time to complete the evaluative component of the project. I will certainly add my voice on the Justice Committee to those who have been advocating for additional funding to allow this highly unique, but clearly successful, approach to justice to continue.
Brent
August 26, 2009
Controversy regarding Bill C-384
Many constituents have written, called and emailed me regarding a Private Members' Bill introduced in the House of Commons by a Bloc Quebecois Member of Parliament, Francine Lalonde. Bill C-384 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity), seeks to amend the Criminal Code of Canada so that Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide would no longer be prosecuted.
Euthanasia is the deliberate killing of a person by act or omission with the purported purpose of eliminating suffering.
I am strongly opposed to both the concept behind, and the details of, this Bill.
Euthanasia is very different from respecting an individual's request not to have treatment or to withdraw treatment when it has dubious benefits. This further can be distinguished from other situations where medication is administered to relieve pain and suffering, even though it is foreseeable and, often the case, that this pain management might ultimately shorten the patient's life.
I do not accept the argument that Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide is a compassionate response to suffering. As life nears its natural end, the compassionate response to any pain and hardship is good palliative care, not the termination of the patient's life.
Our "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" part of our Constitution, provides that all Citizens are entitled to "Life, Liberty and Security of the Person". Accordingly, society depends upon the commitment of all citizens to uphold the dignity of every human life; the legalization of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia would irreparably detract from this common goal.
Moreover, Doctors for centuries have taken an oath that they must heal and never kill. If Bill C-384 were to pass and Doctors were granted license to terminate life, a patient's trust in their doctor and the Doctor - Patient relationship would be irreparably damaged.
This legislation, if passed, would pose a threat to the elderly, the infirm, the disabled, newborns and all members of our society, who are unable to express an opinion or look after their own best interests.
I believe this issue, more than any other, has captured the attention of many constituents in the Edmonton - St. Albert Electoral District. My constituents are nearly unanimous in their opposition to this Bill and also to the concepts of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.
Rest assured that I share your point of view on this matter and will be voting against Bill C-384.
Brent
August 20, 2009
On August 20, 2009 Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, also known as the Lockerbie Bomber was released from a Scottish prison on "compassionate" grounds. This, after being convicted of bombing the 1988 Pan Am Flight 103, killing 269 people, in one of the worst pre-9/11 terrorist attacks that the world has ever witnessed. His release comes despite the fact that he has shown absolutely no remorse for either his actions or his victims.
This decision, made by the Government of Scotland, is abhorrent especially by a nation which supposedly values Western traditions such as democracy and the rule of law.
Al Megrahi was given a sentence of life imprisonment. Therefore, in accordance with British Common Law tradition, his debt to society is only complete once his life has ended.
I completely disagree with the decision by the Scottish Government to liberate this terrorist. I am also disgusted that not only has he been welcomed home to his native Libya, he has received a hero's welcome.
In my opinion, the compassion shown to him by the Scottish Government should have been equivalent to the compassion he showed the victims of Pan Am Flight 103: absolutely none.
Brent