These town halls are an opportunity for Elizabeth to meet her constituents and hear about their concerns and priorities. As well, she updates constituents about her actions and work in the House of Commons on their behalf.

These clips are from Elizabeth’s town hall on Galiano Island in January 2013.

CSIS

[GutCDKyDR-4]

Supporting Idle No More

[PNueBWaqqog]

Decorum in the House

[plu2vDdLb-k]

Electoral Cooperation

[vuHGFPQKJr0]

Legal Arbitration under FIPA

[b135tXwi2rY]

Omnibus Amendments

[9iuftndrK20]

The post Galiano Town Hall Videos appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Ottawa South for a very cogent presentation on the number of issues that we are looking at. I am surprised I have not heard anyone in the House today give us the words of the CEO of CNOOC so we know what kind of people will be taking over Nexen.

The CEO of CNOOC, Wang Yilin, is quoted in the August 29 Wall Street Journal as referring to his offshore resources as “our national territory and a strategic weapon”. I know CSIS is concerned about national security concerns, yet they do not seem to be troubling the Prime Minister.

I want to emphasize again that if the Canada-China investment treaty goes through, questions such as the one that I heard from the member for Ottawa South will be answered for us.

Article 7 of that treaty says, “A Contracting Party may not require that an enterprise of that Party…appoint individuals of any particular nationality to senior management positions”.

We are discussing something today that is inextricably linked to something we are not discussing, which is the Canada-China investment treaty. I invite my friend’s comments on that.

David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that the government is proceeding surreptitiously.

These are major changes. These are risky propositions that we have not even had a chance to examine, not only in the House but in committee as well. Canadians have not been engaged. I do not know if the major industrial sectors in our country have been engaged. They may have been. They may not have been. I do not know whether other groups in Canadian society have been asked to comment on the merits of this proposed treaty.

What we are seeing is a kind of underhandedness that is disrespectful of Parliament and disrespectful of Canadians. Under the guise of promoting trade, running around the world and saying that we are the only ones open for business, carries with it a certain amount of risk because it actually weakens Canada’s negotiation position, I think, with different foreign entities like China.

The comments that were referred to earlier are precisely the kind of comments we should be examining in committee. In fact, we should be calling for the president and CEO of CNOOC to appear before committee to explain those kind of comments so we have a better understanding of what is at stake.

However, once again, there will be transaction after transaction coming forward. Until we flesh out the net benefit test appropriate for Canadians, we will go from crisis to crisis. There are many deals in the pipeline ready to be negotiated right now in the oil patch, and people are watching very carefully as to how Parliament is going to proceed.

The post Opposition Motion — Nexen appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for LaSalle—Émard for her very important speech. She spoke about a key national security issue, which is CNOOC’s takeover of Nexen.

I am particularly concerned that the government of the current Prime Minister chose to reject expert advice that the term “national security” should be defined and that there should be objective criteria within the Investment Canada Act. This was a recommendation that came when the special blue-ribbon panel was put together, following the moment when Minmetals nearly bought a Canadian mining giant.

The advice was objective criteria and an objective definition of national security. The Conservatives chose to ignore that advice, claiming in the 2009 notes to the Investment Canada Act within the Canada Gazette that the term was a fluid concept and impossible to define.

Now we know CSIS has national security concerns about this sale. Why do we not have hearings across the country on the national security impacts?

Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her very apt comment.

This brings up the need to hold public hearings to clearly define the net benefit to Canada and to address national security issues, especially with respect to Canada’s strategic resources. She confirmed the importance of holding such hearings.

The post Opposition Motion — Nexen appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I  submitted amendments to redress the changes, as did Liberal and NDP MPs, but, there was no willingness on the part of the Harper Conservatives to reconsider food safety and controls on prescription drugs.  No surprise.  As we all know, the 425 page bill passed into law at break-neck speed without a single amendment at committee or report stage.

The buzz-words stayed the same as Bill C-38 waded into reducing consumer access to information, and potentially reducing the safety of our foods and drugs.

The changes are to “streamline” the approval of new food additives, ingredients and food modifications.  The industry leaders in food retailing heralded the changes.  According to the industry association, Food and Consumer Products of Canada, Canada has been lagging behind other countries due to our onerous regulations.  What dire negative impact is there as a result of undue regulation of food safety?  Apparently, Canadians have been suffering as regulations have been “seriously limiting consumer choice in the marketplace.” I wonder if these guys have been in the “marketplace” lately.  The array of consumer choice for everything from toothpaste to olive oil is dizzying.  But apparently, Canadians are deprived of “choice.”

So thanks to C-38, a range of decisions that used to run the normal course of regulation-making will no longer receive the public and Parliamentary oversight implicit in promulgating regulations.  Decisions are reduced to non-regulatory lists and the minister of health can approve new food products, as long as a previous assessment of the additive was made for other products. “Interim marketing authorizations” can be granted without moving through regulation.  And unlike the previous law, the interim authorization could remain in place indefinitely.

Meanwhile, regulations of food safety with regard to contamination with hazardous substances have been relaxed. The requirement that the Minister had to conclude that “the food would not be harmful to the health of the purchaser or consumer” has been removed.  This will allow the minister to allow the sale of products with levels of pesticides, veterinary drugs or food additives without determining first that the food would not be harmful.  There was no explanation for removing this protection.

In the area of prescription drugs, regulations were also removed.  The minister will no longer have to post proposed new prescription drugs to the Canada Gazette.  The minister will establish a “list that sets out prescription drugs, classes of prescription drugs or both.” And the list is “not a regulation within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act.”  More great streamlining for Big Pharma.

What Canadian consumers really want is more product information.  Canadians want labels to allow us to differentiate between products containing genetically modified organisms and those without.  We want the label information to tell us more clearly what parts of prepared food products are locally grown, or at least grown in Canada.

These areas require attention.  Meanwhile, the Harper Conservatives are relaxing food and drug safety regulation in the interest of rushing new food and pharmaceutical products to, what they apparently conceive, as a barren and lonely marketplace, where Canadians yearn for the next new clean-minty-whitening-with green swirls-stand up by itself tube of toothpaste.

Elizabeth May is the Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands and Leader of the Green Party of Canada.
Originally printed in the Hill Times.

The post Canadians want more product labeling, not reductions in food and drug regulations appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“The finding that the rights of Mohamed Harkat were violated by the use as evidence of electronic recordings, which have since been destroyed, confirms that the Canadian justice system has survived efforts to legalize intrusions into the basic rights of the accused,” said May.

“I’m also pleased that the three-judge panel found that Harkat’s trial judge was wrong to create a special ‘class privilege’ for informers, giving them too much confidentiality and anonymity.”

With the use of security certificates, CSIS has the authority to detain a resident indefinitely and without charge on the basis of hidden information, the petition stated.  It pointed out that changes made after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Security Certificate use to be unconstitutional in February 2007 were “cosmetic.”

A judge’s issuing of a Security Certificate can now be appealed through a Special Advocate (SA) Process, but, once the secret trial has begun, a defendant’s court-appointed SA – defence lawyers with security access – requires judicial approval to speak with the defendant.  This means Special Advocates are unable to properly represent their defendants.

Also, defendants are told the general outline of the government’s case, but not the details needed to allow them to challenge information, counter false allegations, or expose informants’ lies.

“Special Advocates play a limited role not only because they can’t communicate with the terror suspect, but they are prevented from independently investigating allegations or introducing new evidence into secret hearings,” May pointed out.   Harkat’s case is the first to test the changes with a challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Green Party has called on Parliament to stand up for human rights by throwing out sections 83.28 and 83.3 of the Criminal Code, enacted in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which allow police to arrest terrorism suspects without warrants and force individuals to share information in closed courts.

The post Petition Calls for End to Security Certificates appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On Tuesday (February 14^th), the Committee heard testimony from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) and the Canadian Boarder Services Agency (CBSA) on the current use of biometrics technology on refugee claimants and temporary foreign worker visa applicants as well as the proposed use of electronic travel authority (ETA) forms to prevent inadmissible individuals from reaching Canada.

On Thursday (February 16^th), the Committee heard testimony from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Office of the Auditor-General of Canada, and the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. The Committee examined the privacy concerns involved with the use of biometrics technology, the potential problems of sharing the data collected with Canada’s allies (especially the United States), the current gaps and inefficiencies in the processing of visa applications, and the problems involved with the processing of refugee claimants including their detention and removal.

Minister Jason Kenny also introduced Bill C-31 in the House of Commons on Wednesday (February 15^th), a bill which will allow the minister to select ‘safe’ countries from which to accept refugees and confirms the implementation of biometrics technology in the tracking of refugee claimants.

In the following weeks, the Committee will continue to assess the use of biometrics technology and the ways in which Canada’s immigration system can be made more secure.

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

Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada (MP for SGI) stated, “Canadians do not want to legitimize torture under any circumstance.  The Conservative government is out of step with the values of Canadians.” 

This latest barrage on Human Rights reverses a previous Conservative policy, which once insisted the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) would discard information if there was any inkling it might be tainted.  They are now encouraged to use this information, even if it is obtained via torture.  Equally alarming is the admission that such information would not only be shared with Canadian police, but that CSIS would pass it to relevant foreign agencies as well. Amnesty International Canada decried the action saying, “Information obtained under torture has no place in the justice system, full stop.”

A federal inquiry by Justice Dennis O’Connor into the Maher Arar torture affair recommended in 2006 that policies include specific directions “aimed at eliminating any possible Canadian complicity in torture, avoiding the risk of other human rights abuses and ensuring accountability.”

According to the December 2010 directive, the government expects the spy service to “make the protection of life and property its overriding priority.”  It also states that in “exceptional circumstances,” where there is a threat to human life or public safety, urgency may require CSIS to “share the most complete information available at the time with relevant authorities, including information based on intelligence provided by foreign agencies that may have been derived from the use of torture or mistreatment.” 

Green Human Rights Critic Joe Foster commented, “If property is an overriding priority, that would explain overlooking abuses of Canadian mining companies and the push for trade, regardless of human rights concerns.”  He continued, “What about those being tortured, whether they be innocent or not? What about the threat to their human life?  Our values towards basic human rights are being eroded.  One can only surmise that the Prime Minister now condones torture if it provides the information he wants.”

“Canadian law enforcement and security agencies should focus on getting rid of information that bears the taint of torture, not on carving out exceptions for when it can be used,” said Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada.

“If we are to remain a civilized nation, then there is never justification for torture,” said Foster.

The post Growing Erosion of Human Rights Concerns Canadians appeared first on Elizabeth May.

A recent Access to Information Act request by the Canadian Press has obtained a directive from Public Safety Minister Vic Toews to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), instructing that in “exceptional circumstances” CSIS should “share the most complete information available at the time with relevant authorities, including information based on intelligence provided by foreign agencies that may have been derived from the use of torture or mistreatment.”

“Yet again Stephen Harper re-defines morality.  He used to insist that information obtained by torture was tainted and should be discarded.  When did this become tolerable?” asked Eric Walton, Green International Affairs Critic.   “We have seen over and over again that the information obtained by torture is notoriously unreliable and can lead to a disastrous course of action”  added Mr Walton.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has called for the US to stop using information obtained by torture, “In the face of this perilous climate, our nation must not embrace a morality based on an attitude that ‘desperate times call for desperate measures.’ There can be no compromise on the moral imperative to protect the basic human rights of any individual incarcerated for any reason.”

“A nation that values justice, respect for the rule of law, and civil liberty does not engage in torture. It is that simple,” said May.

The post No Exceptions for Torture appeared first on Elizabeth May.