I want to turn our attention to another piece of this. As much as we can say we want to address the problem and that the problem is the people who are held not criminally responsible, if the legislation that is passed is not compliant with the charter, it will make things worse, even with the aims that the Conservatives claim they want to address here.

If my hon. colleague is familiar with the position of the Canadian Bar Association, its members have looked at this and at the removal of the language of the “least onerous and least restrictive” requirement, which is essential in their mind to constitutional validity of the provisions that we now have. The Supreme Court of Canada has underscored this: that if we remove, as Bill C-54 would, the language of the “least onerous and least restrictive” requirement, we may well find that this legislation would be susceptible to a constitutional challenge and that it would fail to survive.

Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, these are definitely matters that we would like to discuss with the government side in committee. We would like to talk about the balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of victims. These are things that can be explored and debated in committee. We can discuss the serious questions about the charter and the balance between the rights of victims and the rights of individuals. That is why we are supporting it at second reading: so that it can get to committee and we can discuss these issues.

The post Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act (Bill C-54) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It is hard when battling statistics are raised in debates and people are left to wonder what the actual state of evidence is. I am persuaded by the various briefs by the Canadian Bar Association, scientists and people who have dedicated their life’s work to this area, such as McGill University psychiatrists and others.

The rate of recidivism for people who actually have been found not criminally responsible is extremely small. Therefore, I was baffled by the statistics used earlier in the debate by the Minister of Natural Resources, and I wish I could have gotten a question to him. However, the best statistics I can find say that only 7.3% of designated NCR accused actually return to commit a violent offence within the next three years.

The experts in this area are saying that this is not where we need to fix the problem. They are not saying that there is no problem, but they are saying that where we really need to focus resources is on adequate treatment and identification of people with mental health issues to ensure that both they and society are protected.

 Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources cited a few recidivism statistics, and whether it is 27.3% of NCR accused who have had past findings of NCR, or 4%, or 7% as the member stated, what is important in this legislation is that prosecutors would have some additional tools at their disposal, and we leave it to the people with the expertise to decide where and when the appropriate time is to use those tools. Ultimately, the protection of society is paramount.

I think we can all agree that these are all terrible tragedies, whether it is 4 out of 100 people who experience recidivism or 25. We need to do everything we can as a society and as a justice system to make sure that the experts and the prosecutors who deal with these kinds of things, using the advice of mental health experts, can decide whether these kinds of tools need to be applied in each individual case.

The post Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act (Bill C-54) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I wonder if he can fill me in on why, in this instance, the official opposition decided to go along with the Conservatives on the bill.

Wayne Marston: To be very frank, Mr. Speaker, the official opposition did not see the merits in those amendments, so we did not support them.

The post An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Bill C-55) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The reason this issue was put forward by the Canadian Bar Association was actually to get it right. This is not to say that there are not other places in the Criminal Code where we find that definition, but in this specific instance, which is a quite extraordinary intrusion of the state into the personal lives of its citizens, it is trying to make it clear that not just anybody can do this, and that even within the police force, as the Canadian Bar Association letters to the committee pointed out, certainly “Special training and oversight are necessary for police officers who have such potentially intrusive power.”

It is basically suggesting that maybe it is not the cop on the beat who gets warrantless wiretap permission in exigent circumstances. Those same persons, by the way, should be capable of saving their notes from the case. Handwritten notes are all that are required to memorialize why they thought there were legitimate grounds to seek this extraordinary power of intruding into people’s private lives.Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her statement.

I read all of the testimony given in committee, and, as I said earlier when I addressed the House, the minister answered my colleague’s questions. Nevertheless, some serious questions remain concerning this bill.

Does my colleague agree with me that the changes brought about by today’s amendments would improve the bill?

Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question as follows.

When we looked at the definition of police officer or when we had queries about the contents of reports, we understood that much of this falls under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, I think we have to focus on the answer to be given to the dictates from the Supreme Court of Canada.

This does not mean that we cannot study the other aspects in greater depth, but they give rise to other problems. I personally do not have a clear-cut answer as to whether using the amendment creates more problems than it solves. That is what was raised by this type of amendment.

Regarding the R. v. Tse case, it would be preferable to leave the text as it stands. Later on, other steps will perhaps have to be taken in terms of wiretapping or interception. However, on the basis of R. v. Tse, the response is more than appropriate.

There are still questions about closing the definition of “police officer”, as my colleague wants to do. Witnesses told us that this would cause some problems. In some places, the situation is perhaps not described in the same way, but there is already a clear picture of this other person who keeps the peace.

Regarding the fact that time is limited, I think that the government will have to take the blame, because it is the government that is pushing for this exercise to be carried out so quickly. That being said, the only question the House must ask is whether the response to the principle requested by the Supreme Court is appropriate. The answer is simply: yes. Unfortunately, what is left leads to too many other questions.

The post An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Bill C-55) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Bill C-55) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

During Monday’s meeting, members heard testimony from two witnesses, Guy Giorno, Executive Member of the Canadian Bar Association, and Yves Boisvert, Professor at the École nationale d’administration publique. The testimony focused on the possible introduction of monetary penalties for breaches of the Act, which both witnesses recommended, and raised concerns about legislative clarity, specifically in regards to objectives, definitions of ‘personal interest’ and ‘gifts,’ and post-employment obligations. Attention was drawn to the need for transparency and accountability in the use of the Act, and the fact that the rule of law is the basis for the legislation, something public office holders are not above. Like previous witnesses, the speakers pointed to enforceability as a key weakness of the current legislation.

During the last thirty minutes of the February 25^th meeting a motion was introduced by Charmaine Borg, proposing that the committee study ways to enhance the Privacy Commissioner’s ability to deal with data breaches. This led to a vote, supported uniquely by Conservative members, which moved the meeting in-camera. It is possible that the Conservatives voted down the motion.

During the February 27^th in camera meeting, the committee agreed to study undertake a study of the Main Estimates. The Minutes can be found here.

The post Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On November 5^th, the committee heard testimony from immigration lawyers Barbara Jackman, Robin Seligman, and David Mantas, who argued that Bill C-43’s removal of appeal mechanisms for permanent residents, especially on the grounds of humanitarian compassion, eradicated the only venue in which these individuals had in shedding light on the context of their criminality, and the only forum they had in discussing the effects deportation could have on their well-being. Testimony was also heard from Lorne Waldman and Angus Grant of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, who argued that other legislative innovations could have done a better job in removing foreign criminals from Canada than Bill C-43. A point of contention for both individuals was the issue of ministerial waivers, and the effects that CSIS policies of not recording deportation interviews could have on the ability of lawyers to mediate factual disputes between clients and officers. Additional testimony was also heard from Martin Collacott of the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, who suggested that while Bill C-43 removes appeal mechanisms for permanent residents sentenced to 6 months or more in jail, the bill does not prevent these individuals from asking judges to take their citizenship status into consideration during sentencing.

On November 7^th, the committee heard testimony from representatives of the Canadian Bar Association, who argued that Bill C-43 was a piece of legislation that had not gone through the public consultation process required  in designing laws sufficient in dealing with the problems of the immigration system. As a result, the bill – especially the provisions which grant ministerial waivers, removes appeal mechanisms, and changes the misrepresentation bar from two to five years – represents a patchwork of poorly designed policies that are unaccountable, unregulated and un-Canadian. Testimony was also heard from immigration lawyer Reynaldo Reis Visarra Jr. Pagtakhan, who argued that while Bill C-43’s denial of appeal for permanent residents is a provision that should be supported, its 5-year ban on misrepresentation, and its granting of ministerial waivers are provisions needing amendment or removal. Additional Testimony was also heard from Rivka Augenfeld and Richard Goldman of Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, who suggested that Bill C-43 demonstrates a pattern of “exclusionary” activities by the government, who no longer cares about the activities of the immigrant prior to migration, but is now more concerned with who these individuals associate with. The organization believes that this change in priority has expanded the scope of criminality in Canada and has unfairly labelled individuals as inadmissible.

The post Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“The Harper Conservatives were given their ‘strong mandate’ with the actual votes of 24.3 percent of Canadians,” said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.  “Thanks to our first past the post voting system, 39 percent of those who voted elected a majority Conservative parliament.  At the same time, there is doubt hanging over the results of some of the closer Conservative riding victories because of fraudulent voter suppression efforts and robocalls.”

Since the election, the Harper Conservatives have been found guilty in the In-and-Out campaign money-laundering scandal of 2006; they’ve admitted making fraudulent calls to undermine former Liberal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler;  they’ve tried to justify funnelling funds to Minister Tony Clement’s riding, claiming funds were to reduce congestion at the border, misleading parliament; Minister Christian Paradis has been found in conflict of interest; the disgraced Integrity Commissioner has been replaced by her compromised deputy, and many more “fishy” goings-on.

The Harper Conservatives have chosen to be tough on other people instead.  They have reversed their policy on the use of evidence obtained through torture; they have passed an omnibus crime bill that will tie up our courts and crowd our prisons; they are supporting a citizens’ arrest bill that the Canadian Bar Association fears will risk a shift to private security firms making arrests, and vigilante justice; they are destroying the long-gun registry and won’t hand over the data to Quebec, and they want to hold political refugee claimants over the age of 16 for up to one year without review. 

This year also saw one of the harshest reports from an Auditor General in living memory, finding that two departments, Public Works and National Defence, had failed in their duty of “due diligence” in the rush to purchase and oversell the benefits of the F-35 fighter jets.

“While the year has been scandal-plagued, the worst of Mr. Harper’s agenda has been the assault on the environment,” said May.  “No one voted Conservative in order to destroy the environment.  The Harper Conservatives did not warn Canadians a year ago that they planned to withdraw from Kyoto, which a majority support, and then kill the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.”

Canadians didn’t vote to shut down our Arctic research station and climate adaptation research, cease funding the Canadian Foundation on Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, and endanger our ability to measure ozone.

The Conservatives’ attacks on the Fisheries Act – taking away protection of fish habitat without consultation with scientists or First Nations – are unprecedented. At the same time, the Conservative propaganda campaign for pipelines and tankers has lacked the requisite balance and impartiality of a government awaiting a decision from a National Energy Board review panel. 

“In pursuit of their goal of putting risky oil supertankers on the BC coastline and building pipelines come hell or high water, the Harper Conservatives are destroying decades’ worth of environmental law in a distinctly fishy move,” said May.  “Sweeping changes to dozens of laws are being smuggled through the legislative process in Bill C-38.  Environmental Assessment law at the federal level is for all intents and purposes destroyed.

“Of all the offences during Mr. Harper’s first year of majority government, the cynically crafted omnibus Budget Implementation Bill C-38 is the worst,” said May.  “It is an abuse of parliamentary process and an abuse of democracy.  It is also an abuse of Canadians’ trust.”

The post First Year of Harper Conservative Majority Very “Fishy” appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I tried to obtain the opportunity to put forward an amendment to delete one section of the bill, which was recommended by the Canadian Bar Association. That section deals with the expansion of citizen’s arrest powers. I wonder, could the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek explain why the official opposition was not willing to second my amendment, which would have at least given us a chance to fix the one section of the bill that gives people the most trouble. 

Wayne Marston: Madam Speaker, I was not at the committee. I am not privy to the reason that our members of the committee chose to not support the amendment. Obviously, they gave it due consideration and felt it did not address the situation in a manner that was appropriate to the bill.

The post Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act (Bill C-26) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I note that the vice-chair of the Canadian Bar Association, Eric Gottardi, is quoted in today’s paper as saying this is a gift to the rent-a-cops. He said, “Such personnel often lack the necessary range of equipment or adequate training to safely and lawfully make arrests in a manner proportionate to the circumstances”.

Even at this late stage we should insist that the sections relating to citizen’s arrest be left alone and remain as they are now in the Criminal Code and not extend them, as this bill does.

Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that private security exists already and that is not going to change. Are there concerns about how private security contractors are used? Certainly, but the bill is not going to change their reality in our society.

We think that the bill is a good bill. It is good because there has been push-back on both sides in order to deal with some outstanding concerns. If my hon. colleague feels that she has to hold her nose to vote for it, well, making laws is like making sausages. It is not the easiest thing. We do not get everything we want. Law is not easy either and there are always going to be grey areas. That is what will be interpreted by the courts.

The post Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act (Bill C-26) appeared first on Elizabeth May.