I rarely get to ask her a question so it pains me to ask her one on this issue. Bill C-38, despite the few things I like, such as allowing recovering people to work while they are on EI, claim that and not have it all clawed back, contains some measures that are good but overall I am so very deeply aggrieved by the number of bills that are thrown into Bill C-38 that are not part of proper fiscal measures, particularly those overhauls of the Canadian Environment Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act and so on.

I would like to ask my hon. friend if she does not think there is some chance that the Minister of Finance might relent and pull out those sections that are not properly part of a budget, so they can be properly and separately debated?

Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is an amazing woman and has done a lot of things in this country. I respect her question. However, in a time of economic downturn, in this very fragile economy, choices have to be made and the bottom line is job growth. The bottom line is to make sure people can have jobs to feed their families. I would think that a government with true leadership would pick those priorities very carefully.

Sometimes it is painful when other things cannot be included because we want to be all things to all people. What a government does and what Canadians expect is for the government to keep them safe, to make sure they have the job opportunities and to keep this country stable. That is what we are doing.

The post Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act (Bill C-38) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Re: ‘Credible’ key in vision for the future (Letters April 18).

I appreciated the support from letter writer Ion Buicliu in reply to Mike Houle’s criticism of my role as MP. Now that Mr. Houle has written once again, I feel it might help him to know how I have indeed been working as a “collaborative parliamentarian.”

My work in Parliament has been noted by many of my colleagues of all parties as I have worked to improve respect and decorum in the House. Working in non-partisan caucuses I have worked (with others) to establish since my election, I am pleased with progress in developing greater understanding across party lines.

On issues from climate change to human smuggling, I have been forging trans-party alliances. Progress is being made on issues from abolishing interprovincial trade barriers for wine sales to protecting species at risk.

This month’s edition of the national Walrus magazine describes me as “the country’s hardest working politician.”

No doubt it is impossible for any MP to please everyone within their ridings, but I think any fair reading of my efforts will yield a more balanced assessment than that rendered by Mr. Houle.

Elizabeth E. May, MP
Saanich-Gulf Islands

View the full original article >>

The post Elizabeth May responds to readers responses appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[g7DrL4QVLFY]

I would like to mention once again that the NDP will be supporting this bill, so that it can be studied in committee. It must be reviewed in committee to ensure that it adheres to some very important principles.

Consider, for example, the famous chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. I need not remind you that this chapter has been extremely harmful here in Canada, particularly as regards the environment.

In Canada, chapter 11 has given rise to lawsuits. Certain multinationals have sued the Canadian government to demand, for example, the right to use certain chemical products, contrary to our desire to protect the environment.

I would also like to know whether my hon. colleague thinks it important to ensure in committee, for example, that the environment will be protected and that we will not be facing a problem such as that caused by NAFTA’s chapter 11.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the hon. member for Drummond, for his comments.

This is a question that is difficult to answer, because what we have here is a bilateral agreement which, like the other agreements, ignores the environment and workers’ rights. I think that, to improve the situation, this agreement should take an innovative approach, an approach where the governments of Canada and Jordan agree to set targets to make the situation more beneficial for workers and for the environment.

In other words, if we could put some targets in a trade agreement that said that not only would this be one where we would not want to see standards lowered, but this would be one where we would like to see standards advanced, and our agreement would be a model for the world.

It is hard to look at what we have now because it is one of those cookie-cutter agreements, like all the rest. We should take it apart and think about what would make it a model that other countries might want to emulate. For instance, with issue of human trafficking, we could have a system where the Kingdom of Jordan would recognize that its reputation as a progressive and forward looking power could be advanced by banning the use of workers who did not have minimum standards for the work they did in that country.

The post Canada-Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act (B) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

As long as we keep calling it human smuggling legislation, we allow it to continue under disguise. It is actually anti-refugee legislation.

I want put for the hon. member the scenario of the MV St. Louis in 1939 in Halifax Harbour. Under our current laws, Captain Gustav Schroeder, who bravely took money and brought Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany to our shores, would be jailed for life. That is already Canadian law; that is not in this bill. Further, all 937 German Jewish refugees would be kept in internment for a year in Canada.

I accept that the hon. members from the government benches said yesterday that this would be far preferable to being sent back to death camps in Nazi Germany, but I really do not think that is how Canadians want to treat refugees who come to our shores, putting men, women and children in jail for a year.

Could the hon. member expand on how he sees the bill affecting the children of refugee families?

Jamie Nicholls: Madam Speaker, we can see that the effect of detaining children and families would be terrible.

Imagine something happening in Canada where all of a sudden we had a natural disaster or some form of persecution causing Canadians to flee to another country. Then when they arrived at that country, they were not welcomed and integrated. Rather they were protected from the people of that country through detention because the public opinion there had been turned against all outsiders.

I imagine the feeling of those families would be terrible. It would terribly psychologically damaging on those families, especially on their children. There are documented medical and physiological effects of child refugees who are not integrated or welcomed. There are serious physiological effects and psychological repercussions, PTSD, and all sorts of things that make it very difficult on a child’s personal development. It is not in the best interests of the child. When that child eventually does integrate into society, extra care will be needed, which will take up resources.

Why do we not start from point zero, helping these families integrate into our society rather than pushing them away?

The post Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada’s Immigration System Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.