I am going to refer to a brief that came from Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic, which made some of the same points. Their reading of this bill, as it is before us now, said that under this bill we may still be running, not only not meeting the convention’s goals, but running “counter to, the convention’s goals”.

They are concerned that the bill:

My question is for my hon. colleague. Given these failures, how does he believe Bill C-6 stands up to the promises and the commitments we have made in signing the convention in the first place?

Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her earlier speech when she spoke so passionately to this issue.

The witnesses we have seen speak passionately about things that are in the bill that are considered to be loopholes, which I mentioned earlier. They also speak to things not addressed, things that live up to the spirit of the treaty that was originally signed. For example, stockpile destruction, transparency reports, working to universalize the convention and promote its norms, notifying allies of its convention obligations, discouraging the use of cluster munitions.

There is a basic investment in the public realm as to what these bombs can do and how we need to eradicate them, and how we keep our governments in check to always make sure that we propose legislation that eliminates these destructive and unbearable munitions.

The post Energy Safety and Security Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

In a majority government, the Conservative Party has repudiated most of the positions of principle that it used to adopt in terms of opposing omnibus legislation or opposing the use of closure because it was anti-democratic. It has used closure and pushed through bills more than any administration in the history of Canada.

In this very critical issue of protecting private property, private information and privacy rights, would my hon. colleague not agree with me that, at this point, it is clear the Conservative administration in power has repudiated just about everything it ever stood for in opposition?

Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, where does one begin?

The hon. member has brought up a valid point, as we discussed earlier. As a matter of fact, my colleague from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel made a good point. He said he was surprised this is not in the budget implementation bill as well.

It is a valid point, because we are seeing everything here being encapsulated. There were omnibus bills in the years before the Conservatives took power in 2006, but there was a general theme around this omnibus legislation. Now there seems to be the bill currently known as “madly off in all directions”, because it is everything that the Conservatives see and most of it was not even in their campaign promises.

My colleague is right in that sense, because at what point do they practise what they used to preach, especially for the period from 2000 to 2005? When I arrived here in 2004, there were some solid arguments as to why bills should be split and dealt with on an individual basis as stand-alone legislation.

Being from Atlantic Canada, the Minister of Justice argued vehemently to take the provisions and changes in the Atlantic accord out of the budget bill because they deserved to be in stand-alone legislation. All of his colleagues in Atlantic Canada mentioned that, but at least that provision in the Atlantic accord shared thematically with the budget, because it was about equalization.

Now we find things sandwiched into this legislation. It is the Neapolitan ice cream of legislation-making. Every flavour is in there. Every little element is in here, and for some reason we have to accept one part and then deny the other, even though they are vehemently opposed to each other.

There is a very important issue in the first part of the motion, so I support the motion simply because it is the responsible and right thing to do. It could be handled very quickly given the situation, the headlines, the editorials that we have witnessed over the past two years. If this is not responsible legislation-making, then I really do not know what is.

The right thing to do is split this legislation. The right thing to do is deal with this very important issue up front, right now, before we get to other matters, including privacy.

The post Committees of the House (Justice and Human Rights) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

In the previous exchange, the Minister of Justice suggested that I or the opposition members as a group were trying to delay action to protect children and young people from cyberbullying. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a very interesting procedural motion that the official opposition is using, a motion of instruction to the committee to split the bill. The point of splitting the bill is for the very purpose of making sure that those provisions that are about cyberbullying and protecting people, potential victims and the vulnerable from cyberbullying are removed and moved through quickly and that the other parts of the bill enhancing sweeping new powers for snooping be subjected to longer hearings.

I noticed that the Minister of Justice did not like my reference to a Globe and Mail cartoon. I wonder if my hon. colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor noticed today’s editorial in the National Post, a newspaper with a closer alignment to the current Conservative administration. It has also called Bill C-13 an unacceptable attack on our privacy.

Would my hon. colleague comment on that?

Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, I apologize that I did not see the editorial in question, but I believe what the member is saying is that we need to be responsible. A responsible way of dealing with the bill is to take out the part that can be passed very quickly, which will achieve the consent within the House, given the issue and the timeliness of it.

I remember back in 2005 when the Conservatives were in opposition. It begged, pleaded and demanded in the House that we remove provisions of the budget dealing with the Atlantic accord because it had received unanimous consent in the House. Therefore, let us put that forward.

The Conservatives also argued for issues dealing with the veterans back when the accord was put out. They wanted to peel that part out and put it through as well. I can only assume that they would probably want to do this again. I feel that by supporting this motion to have the cyberbullying aspect removed from the legislation and pushed through very quickly would certainly be a responsible thing for the entire House to do.

The post Committees of the House (Justice and Human Rights) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I ask my hon. colleague what remains to be done. Could more be done on these opposition benches by the opposition parties, working together, to try to get more public awareness across Canada of the threat posed by this legislation?

If The Globe and Mail could do what it is doing, can we not, as opposition members, do more?

Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time to expand on this. I will say that if 160 academics can band together, and we know that they always have differing opinions and are not united on all things, as some academics here in this House would attest, and agree that this is particularly egregious, to the point that many things are being done here that take away from our democracy, which serves to be a model around the world, I would hope that, yes, the opposition benches could do more to bring this to the public and band together to stop it. The key, however, is the backbench of the government side and whether those members could bring forward a unity of people against this act and what it could do to our democratic process.

The post Opposition Motion — Proposed changes to the Elections Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

However, in this case, in the context of devolution, which is supported by all sides of this House, we are seeing an additional piece, which makes Bill C-15 not unlike an omnibus bill. It is a completely different package of changes that would basically undo treaty negotiations.

I have cited other opinions from the Tlicho First Nation earlier in my speech today, but this started with Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus and four other chiefs voicing how they regard the changes to Bill C-15, and I quote:

I would ask my colleague for some comment.

Is it not a terrible shame to be put to a vote on something we all support, devolution, but include this unconstitutional affront to first nations?

Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do agree.

I think in this particular case, and in many cases, we have seen submissions here from people who find that the federal government’s assault on local governance is an absolute affront. Again, I go back to the principal beneficiaries, not just of the resources but of the whole land, and whether the management of the land is looked after by those locally. In this particular case, the member mentioned Grand Chief Erasmus, who brings up some valid points.

What bothers me though is that all of this is encapsulated in one particular piece of legislation. I spoke on that, and on another part of the bill, the water management, which should also be spun into different legislation. There is a possibility of that. I realize it takes time, but it is the responsible thing to do. I agree with the member’s assessment, and the assessment that many people have within the aboriginal groups, who certainly have their own issues with this.

I hope that the three parties here, the aboriginal groups, the Northwest Territories governance, as well as the Conservative government and its particular department, work this out in the near future. I do not know if it will be worked out within this legislation. However, it certainly is a shame that we do not have those extras put aside, whether they be spun off into different legislation or not.

The post Northwest Territories Devolution Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.