On a related but different point, I want to thank him for raising in question period yesterday the need to support our firefighters. Motion No. 388 went through, although we seem to have no action to bring it into place, and that relates to terrorist acts, as we noted in the Boston Marathon. Everyone was amazed to see the first responders run toward danger when everyone else was running in the other direction.

However, I stand with him in finding, despite my concerns about terrorism, that this current law, Bill S-7, goes too far, and that the existing tools and law in the Criminal Code are more than adequate. I stand with the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, the international civil liberties organizations, as well as with the concerns expressed at committee by the Canadian Bar Association, in believing that the bill potentially violates our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and will therefore be struck down later.

I wonder if he could comment on the futility of passing laws in this place when there are significant doubts that they are charter compliant.

Randall Garrison: Mr. Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I stand in somewhat the same place on this issue. The NDP has had this question for a long time. When legislation is introduced, the Minister of Justice has a responsibility to certify that it would not violate the charter, but the minister has set a very low bar: we have heard reports that if there is even a 5% chance that the law will be upheld in the courts, the government is willing to go ahead and introduce that bill.

I also want to thank my colleague for raising the issue of first responders. The Conservatives say that we have the resources we need, that we have done the things we need to do. Firefighters would be one of our most important resources in any terrorist attack and they were one of the most important resources in Boston, so it shocks me that in this country we have failed to implement a compensation fund for the families of fallen firefighters. The only argument made by the government yesterday against this fund was that it would be simply too expensive. I was disappointed to hear that argument. It was quite a shocking statement, because the tragic loss of firefighters has a cost, and right now those costs are borne by their families.

The post Combating Terrorism Act (Bill S-7) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I completely support what we have just heard from the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. What we have been forced to see is bill after bill, and those of us who have practised at all in the law who are watching recent court proceedings have a grand sense of misgiving that the legislation that has come before us has not been adequately scrutinized.

I am not going to put myself in a position that the hon. government House leader wants us to of making any personal aspersions toward any individual. However, I actually attempted to raise this as a point of order. I certainly appreciate that the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre made it a question of personal privilege. I also feel that my personal privileges have been violated by having legislation brought to this place that clearly has not taken into account the charter implications.

I raised this on March 7, 2012 on the subject of the omnibus crime bill, so-called Bill C-10, because we just had seen the Ontario Superior Court rule on the matter of R. v. Smikle, and it was quite clear that the legislation before us might be, in fact, non-compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is an offence to all of our roles, individually, severally and as a body, to have legislation brought before us forced through by majority vote, which is a disservice to the people of Canada and a disservice to our traditions of law and respect for the rule of law by having legislation here that has not been thoroughly reviewed to ensure its constitutionality.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to support the question of privilege that has been raised and to subscribe myself to it. My personal privileges have been violated.

The post Question of Privilege – Alleged Non-Compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by the Department of Justice appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The mainstream media is marking its report cards for the one-year anniversary under Harper Conservative majority rule. The bromides are calming—the Globe and Mail editorial gives the Conservative majority a positive spin—“more ups than downs”—while its reporter, John Ibbitson, wrote a piece nearly oozing with reverence for the prime minister.

It is clear we all have our biases. I only entered politics back in 2006 because I feared what a Harper minority government would do to decades of environmental law and policy. I have been very critical of the cuts to climate science, retreat from Kyoto commitments, and sabotage of climate negotiations internationally since 2006. But with that bias out in the open, I believe the last year has been the most devastating in Canadian history for parliamentary democracy, for charter rights, to collective bargaining and trade union rights, for evidence-based public policy, and for environmental law and protection. And, of course, the damage to climate policy was accelerated.

Here’s the evidence:

1. Abuse of democracy: Every piece of government legislation introduced since the election has had time allocation applied to limit debate, smashing through historical records. Parliamentary committees have been meeting increasingly in secret. Omnibus legislation, forcing massive legislative changes through one bill, has been used, further depriving Parliament of adequate time to analyze and improve legislation. The auditor general’s report on the F-35 issue makes it clear that Parliament was not given accurate information about the cost of the fighter jets, even after the true cost was known within cabinet. No need to detail here the simmering scandal of electoral fraud and robocalls.
2. Charter rights: The omnibus crime bill included nine separate pieces of legislation. Many sections involving mandatory minimum sentences arguably violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As well, the new refugee law, C-31, will require political refugee claimants arriving by boat (or anything the minister deems as “irregular entry”) to face automatic internment for up to a year without access to judicial review. This will include children between 16 and 18.
3. Collective bargaining: The intervention by the federal Parliament into Air Canada labour disputes (twice) and Canada Post’s lock-out of its workers undermines labour rights. So, too, does the Conservative party-supported private member’s bill to impose more financial transparency on labour unions than on other professional groupings, such as law societies.
4. Control of information: The Harper majority government has been the most closed and non-transparent in history. The number of people working in the Prime Minister’s Office has expanded, with its now over $10 million per year budget. Most of the PMO staff are described as “information officers”. Their job is to block access to information. No public servants or government scientists can speak to the media without permission; neither can they speak to MPs.
5. Evidence-free decision making: Once again the omnibus crime bill must be mentioned. A “tough on crime” agenda was unhinged from the reality of falling crime rates. No amount of evidence from criminologists that mandatory minimums do not reduce crime rates, nor that it was unwise to pass the bill without estimates for the cost of new prisons, made a dent in the Conservative majority mantra that any opposition MP who objected was siding with criminals and showed no concern for victims. The budgetary cuts are now disproportionately targeting Statistics Canada. Who can deny that the Harper brand of Conservatism is an evidence-free zone?
6. Assault on the natural world: The gloves are off. Harper and company have taken aim at environmental groups and First Nations opposed to the Enbridge supertanker scheme calling them “radicals” and labelling MPs who oppose the project as “against Canada”. While selling out our resources to China, without national security checks, Stephen Harper has promised Beijing the Enbridge project will proceed. In order to achieve this goal, come hell or high water, environmental laws are being eviscerated. And the sweeping changes are concealed in C-38, the budget implementation bill. The National Energy Board will now have jurisdiction over endangered species and navigable waters, if they occur in the way of any proposed pipeline. Meanwhile, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is repealed (under C-38) with an entirely new approach to replace it. The new law will restrict the study of impacts of major projects to areas “under the legislative authority of Parliament”—confined to fish and migratory birds. Where, in the past, an environmental review at the federal level was the most rigorous and comprehensive, new federal reviews would be a joke by Third World standards. The removal of habitat protection under the Fisheries Act is also part of the budget bill. So too, repealing the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act. Meanwhile, $8 million has been freed up to harass environmental charities.

Canadians must not remain silent. It is not only one area of public policy or one ecosystem that is threatened. Canada, our values and our traditions, are at risk.

Elizabeth May is the leader of the Green Party of Canada and the MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

Originally published in the Georgia Straight.

The post A devastating first year of Conservative majority rule in Canada appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[v2MjRfDZcGc]

Hon. Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, in the ordinary conduct of business, the Minister of Justice would have had to refer this matter to the constitutional experts within the Department of Justice. He would have asked them whether the suspect provisions that I have mentioned, or any others, comport with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have full respect for those officials in the Department of Justice. I have my doubts as to whether that question was even put to the officials. If it had been put to them, he would have received the response that those provisions were invalid.

I would ask the minister to refer those matters to his officials and at least suspend the application of Bill C-10 with respect to those provisions that are constitutionally suspect until that advice can be tabled before this Parliament.

If the bill goes ahead, we are going to see a series of constitutional challenges with respect to those constitutionally suspect provisions. This could have been avoided if the Minister of Justice had exercised due diligence. We are going to see additional constitutional challenges at an additional cost to the taxpayer, all undermining the integrity of our process.

The post Safe Streets and Communities Act (Bill C-10) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[1eTJIIolC1c]

My question for the hon. member relates to what I regard as the fundamental matter before the House at this moment. As members of Parliament we have taken an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Each of us has taken an oath to uphold the Canadian Constitution. In the case of Regina v. Smickle, the Ontario Superior Court has ruled that these mandatory minimums offend the charter and are likely unconstitutional. It seems to be beyond our ability to grasp that we are passing a law that is in itself illegal.

Does the member have any comments on that problem, for each of us as individual members?

Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has raised a novel question as to whether or not there is some question of an oath.

I am saying this as someone who is a lawyer, as is the hon. member. I have read most of the case of Mr. Smickle. It is a rather unfortunate set of circumstances. It is also potentially a unique law where if the Crown prosecuted by summary conviction, the maximum sentence was one year, and if the Crown prosecuted by indictment, which it did, the minimum sentence was three years. There was no possibility of any sentence between one and three years. The Crown was the one that made the decision, not the court, not the judge.

I am not a fan of mandatory minimum sentences, although we did support that in the case of sexual offences because of the national consensus on that. We may have to look again at the aboriginal solutions within communities for that, but we supported that.

I do not think the court said that all mandatory minimum sentences were unconstitutional. That court is a court of first instance.

I do not think, despite what debate we might have about it, that we are somehow bound by our oath not to vote against it. I will certainly be voting against any aspect of Bill C-10. I do not know if we can say the members opposite are voting against something that is definitely constitutional. The member for Mount Royal has said that much of it is constitutionally suspect, but that is really for the courts to decide.

The post Safe Streets and Communities Act (Bill C-10) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[q9RtWXICFds]

Since we first debated Bill C-10 in the House, we have now had a court ruling from the Ontario Superior Court in the case of R. v. Smickle. In that case, a judge of the Superior Court of Ontario made it very clear that the concerns of many members of opposition parties on this matter are not misplaced, in that the bill may well be unconstitutional. As such, I feel it is important, although novel, to rise on a point of–

The Acting Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Saanich–Gulf Islands for her intervention but I do not hear anything in there that is really a point of order. I think it is a matter of debate concerning the issue at hand.

The post Safe Streets and Communities Act (Bill C-10) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[-XxJFBe-WTE]

Most opposition members, certainly the Green Party and from what I hear the hon. member for Mount Royal and the Liberal Party, support the section relating to the proceeds of terrorism and the ability to go after people who commit terrorist attacks with civil suits seeking financial remedies. This process would have been made much simpler had the government been prepared to consider amendments when the hon. member for Mount Royal first moved them.

That said, I find it unfortunate that we are closing down debate once again on this bill. Would the hon. Minister of Justice reconsider and allow other sections of the bill to be reopened at this time?

Hon. Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would be hard-pressed in all the years I have been here to come up with another piece of legislation that has had as much debate as Bill C-10 has had.

If we spent another four years debating this, would the member change her mind? Let us be honest. The day before yesterday the member said that people were criticizing the bill because more criminals might be on the streets. On another day members say that everybody is going to be locked up. Those members cannot make up their minds.

Ultimately, they should be supporting this legislation because it is the right thing to do. The legislation goes after drug traffickers, the people who are bringing heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine into this country. It sends out the message that that kind of behaviour is unacceptable. That is why the member and everyone else should support this important piece of legislation.

The post Safe Streets and Communities Act (Bill C-10) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[YmFfcwX6thU]

I plead with the hon. Minister of Justice to allow more amendments to the bill now that it has come and thus an opportunity to redress those sections that are least likely to work and most likely to hurt our society.

Hon. Rob Nicholson: I have heard it both ways, Madam Speaker. When we introduced the bill people were saying that we would be putting more people in jails and that jails would become overcrowded. Then I get criticized by their saying that less people would be convicted and more people would be out on the street. I guess the critics of the bill have it both ways.

I appreciated getting input from the Canadian Bar Association. Certainly, I like to get input from all segments of society.

We were very clear in the last election. I am grateful to the people of this country because they keep giving us a stronger mandate, and we make it very clear in every election that this is the direction in which we are going.

We are sending a message to drug traffickers. People who bring drugs into this country will not like this particular piece of legislation, as it includes mandatory jail time. While it is a balancing act that we negotiate whenever we put these bills together, we are sending very strong message to people in the business of either sexually exploiting children or trafficking in drugs. We are sending out the correct message to them and I am proud of that.

The post Safe Streets and Communities Act (Bill C-10) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Never before in Canadian history has this country withdrawn from a treaty we have ratified – not on any issue. Ever.

I don’t see how other delegations that dealt with Canada’s obstructionist position in Durban, in which we negotiated as a Kyoto party, will possibly regard this as anything but negotiating in bad faith.

Ever since CTV broke the story that the Harper Cabinet had decided to legally withdraw from Kyoto – with no debate and no vote in the House – I have been, at one and the same time, certain the leak was correct while hoping they would not go through with it.

And now they have.  It is devastating.  It is even worse than all the other regressive steps of the Harper government in blocking climate action.

Kent announced legal withdrawal with a flurry of bizarre and untrue scare tactics.  As if the Kyoto Protocol had effective sanctions for law breakers like Canada.  As if Kyoto had the kind of draconian mandatory minimums of the Omnibus Crime Bill.   Kyoto has no effective enforcement mechanisms.  The only penalty would be for a country that decided to enter into second commitment period negotiations (NOT Canada). And even then it would only mean that the target Canada would negotiate (if we were negotiating) would have a top up of .3 of a tonne for every tonne we agreed to.  So in negotiations we could take into account the amount of the penalty and set out target low enough to absorb the penalty.  Each country negotiates what it will accept.  That’s why in 1997, Australia’s Kyoto target was 8% above 1990 levels, when all other industrialized countries were to go below 1990 levels. (Canada by 6%, US by 7%, and the EU by 8 %.)  True most European nations did not hit 8%.  They cut 20% and more.  Europe as a block has more than met its Kyoto targets.

Kent claimed staying in Kyoto would cost $14 billion.  Rubbish.

What are they spinning?  The cost of trying with no plan and a year from the target to reduce our emissions enough to meet the 6% target — and then deciding to buy enough credits to meet the target — could be $14 billion.  I haven’t checked their math because the whole idea is screamingly bogus.  Nothing in Kyoto obliges us to spend one dime.  Nothing in Kyoto could induce or require a country to buy credits.

And now, despite Harper’s death wish for Kyoto and Kent’s “Kyoto is in the past,” look what was approved in Durban:  a second commitment period under Kyoto.  Not enough countries have signed up to accept targets, but the intention is to do so.  Hardly “in the past.”

What’s in the past?  Canada’s reputation as a country with any integrity.  Canada’s reputation as a country showing environmental leadership.

What must not be “in the past” is our chance to avoid cataclysmic climate change.

We are running out of time (see latest International Energy Agency report).  Durban’s agreements are weak and Canada just gave them a swift kick in a place that hurts.

So although, like me, you may feel like throwing yourself down and weeping for the betrayal of our future, for the loss of Canada’s ratification of Kyoto, do not waste the energy.  Get back up.  And fight.

Get back up and resolve: Stephen Harper must not be allowed to get away with this.  There must be a political cost.

Write letters to every newspaper denouncing the will of the majority of Canadians who support Kyoto was ignored.  Spend some time on media websites.  Write comments. Vote thumbs up and down. If you have a Conservative MP, leave them messages on the constituency phone lines.  Demand an appointment. Organize protests. Go on line to petitions.  Send a donation to the Sierra Club, Suzuki Foundation, or WWF and ask them to mount campaigns to demand we stay in Kyoto.  Our legal withdrawal does not take effect until next year, so we have time to push back.

Ask why Parliament was allowed to vote on Kyoto ratification (December 17, 2002) but given no chance to debate or vote on withdrawal in 2011.  Ask why they are lying to Canadians and claiming staying in Kyoto would cost $14 billion.

I know it is almost Christmas, but how can we rejoice with our children and grandchildren when a lifeline to their future was just sawed off by a reckless government?

This is not a partisan issue.  Mulroney showed global leadership on climate.  Chretien ratified, but never gave us a plan.  Paul Martin (with Dion as Environment minister) produced a decent plan.  Stephen Harper killed the plan within weeks of becoming Prime Minister.  It is clear that the Prime Minister does not have one single solitary clue of why reducing GHG matters.  But he does understand political cost.  This betrayal must cost.

Even though it is almost Christmas, almost Hanukkah and holidays, skip some last minute shopping.  Whatever you were going to buy, your children need a liveable world much much more.

The post Kyoto withdrawal: There must be a political price to be paid appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The committee had previously considered its Supplementary Estimates for 2011-12 on 29 November. Prior to that, it completed its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-10, The Safer Streets and Communities Act, also known as the Omnibus Crime Bill.

The post Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST) appeared first on Elizabeth May.