For those who have a legal background, as my hon. friend does and as I have, it is astonishing to me, as I made this point earlier today, that the Conservative administration refuses to take seriously numerous Supreme Court decisions.

With regard to the elimination of four regional boards that have been the result of negotiation and treaty, that are part of a government-to-government relationship, it is not really a matter of “We’ve told them about it for years, so they should be ready for it by now”. That is not consultation.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would like to reflect upon, based on his own extensive experience in this area, what proper consultation, nation to nation, between the federal crown and first nations, would look like if the current government got it.

Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the following. Consultation is not a “would be nice to have” thing, but it a “must-have” thing. The Supreme Court has made that abundantly clear. In many cases involving the north, and recently involving the Yukon self-government and the constitutional protections there, it has reinforced what it had said so frequently in southern cases, if I can call the Delgamuukw and the Haida cases southern.

In the north as well, the honour of the crown is relevant. We enter into these regional agreements with first nations, we make them part of a land claims agreement that is working well, and then the government comes along and wants to blow it up. That is not respectful, and it is probably not constitutional either.

The Government of Canada has been held to account more than once on the need to observe the honour of the crown. That is a living, breathing requirement of consultation and accommodation.

Many experts have said that this simply will not stand up. Again, I ask why. Why are we here, on what could be the happiest day for the north, talking about something that is so unnecessary?

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

One of the things I find most distressing about Bill C-2 is that it is a disguised attempt to bring in, by stealth, measures that would defeat the purpose the Supreme Court of Canada threw back to Parliament to meet, which was to ensure that the security of the person is protected.

There are more than 40 different so-called conditions before a clinic for harm reduction can be opened in a community, including some that are practically impossible. For example, before they are even able to get permission to open such a clinic, they have to provide the background, resumé, and educational qualifications of the people they plan to hire. This is not a reasonable set of conditions.

I certainly have a lot of sympathy with the idea that a community where an InSite harm reduction, needle exchange program facility would open, such as the one that exists in Vancouver, should be consulted. My view is that Bill C-2 is not a set of conditions for consulting a community. It is a set of conditions for defeating the instructions of the Supreme Court of Canada by stealth.

I wonder how the hon. member feels a community should be engaged in these decisions.

The post Respect for Communities Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

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.

“This motion is a back-door attempt to re-open the abortion debate,” said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands.  “The Green Party opposes any move by the Harper Conservatives to diminish the right of a woman to a safe, legal abortion. We fully support a woman’s fundamental right to choose.”

What some have labelled the “Men Who Stare at Zygotes Motion” calls for a special parliamentary committee to examine whether the Criminal Code definition of when a child becomes a “human being” should be changed to extend legal personhood to fetuses.

“If that were to happen, it would remove women’s rights as full human beings, and possibly even criminalize their decision-making during pregnancy,” said May.

M-312 is a waste of time and taxpayers’ money because it raises issues which have already been dealt with by Canada’s Supreme Court (including in Tremblay v. Daigle, Dobson v. Dobson, Winnipeg Child & Family Services v. Ms.G.D.F., Borowski v. Attorney General of Canada, and R. v. Morgentaler.)

The law has always treated a pregnant woman and her fetus as one person. The courts have stated that the intimate connection between a woman and her fetus cannot be considered in isolation, and that giving rights to fetuses would impose a duty of care on a pregnant woman that could result in extensive and unacceptable intrusions into her bodily integrity, privacy, and autonomy.

Fetal personhood would seriously undermine the constitutional rights of women who need abortions, but also the rights of any pregnant woman.  

“In the U.S., hundreds of women have been prosecuted because of so-called “fetal homicide” laws and thousands more have been subjected to punitive and counter-productive child-welfare interventions that treat what women do or experience during pregnancy as evidence of child neglect or abuse,” May warned.  “This is cruel and short-sighted.

Through the Green Party’s “pro-life, pro-choice” position, it is committed to expanding programs in reproductive rights and education to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place, thus reducing the number of abortions in Canada.  Greens have also advocated the expansion of supports for low-income mothers who wish to have a child, but may consider abortion due to lack of resources.

“It is vital that safe, legal abortions be available to the women of Canada – and the world. Contrary to the Harper Conservatives, we also fully support federally-funded maternal health programmes to ensure access to family planning and primary health care, including access to safe, legal abortions.  These are rights we should be expanding, not threatening,” May concluded.

The post May Warns of Sabotage to Women’s Rights appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“Everyone thought this issue of same-sex marriage was settled.  Canadians have over and over again indicated that they believe people have the right to marry without being discriminated against for their sexual orientation,” said Chris Lea, former leader of the Green Party of Canada and the first openly gay political party leader in Canadian history.

Canadians believe in freedom from discrimination. This includes people having the right to live their lives without being discriminated against for their race, creed, ethnic background, political beliefs or sexual orientation. A majority of Canadians applaud the fact that Canada was one of the first countries to sanction same-sex marriage. Existing legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibit discrimination.

In 1996, the Green Party of Canada became the first federal party to officially support the inclusion of same-sex couples in civil marriage.

“The Harper government’s position shows a total disrespect of gays and lesbians and their families, contempt of law, legislation and due process. As confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, our rights are equal to the rights of other citizens and visitors in Canada. This new position promotes hate in a time when too many young gay, lesbian and transgender people are being bullied into taking their lives,” said Lea.

“We must not allow these backward steps. We must remain vigilant and work toward our vision of a world in which difference is accepted and celebrated, whether it is sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression,” said May.

The post Same-sex marriage should be recognized for non-residents too appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May and Fair Vote Canada were granted intervenor status by the Quebec Court of Appeal and will again apply for such status if the case were to be heard by Canada’s Supreme Court.  Both parties are represented by Peter Rosenthal, an experienced constitutional lawyer from Toronto, who has also been successful in his presentations before Canada’s highest court.

“Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees us the right to vote,” said Wayne Smith, Executive Director of Fair Vote Canada (FVC). “The Supreme Court has ruled in previous decisions that this doesn’t just mean the right to put a piece of paper in a box. We are guaranteed the right to effective representation.”

At the press conference Smith announced that, Fair Vote Canada, Canada’s national citizens’ movement for electoral reform will contribute $10,000 in matching funding to support a challenge in the Supreme Court of Canada.

“The damage done by first-past-the-post extends from the voting box to the very degradation of political discourse in this country,” added Green Party Leader Elizabeth May. “When a party can achieve majority control over the entire country with as little as 38% it is evident that our voting system delivers unfair and anti-democratic results.”

“Having gone through the courts in Quebec only to have our empirical evidence and expert testimony virtually ignored, we are hoping that the Supreme Court will hear our appeal and give our case due consideration,” said Brian Gibb from the Association for the Advancement of Democratic Rights and one of the principle plaintiffs in the case.  “We anticipate that the Court will render its decision on whether to hear our case within the next six months.”

The post May and Fair Vote Canada Support Court Challenge of First-Past-the-Post appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[PhNx-jn62nU]

Elizabeth May and Fair Vote Canada were granted intervenor status by the Quebec Court of Appeal and will again apply for such status if the case were to be heard by Canada’s Supreme Court.  Both parties are represented by Peter Rosenthal, an experienced constitutional lawyer from Toronto, who has also been successful in his presentations before Canada’s highest court.

“Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees us the right to vote,” said Wayne Smith, Executive Director of Fair Vote Canada (FVC). “The Supreme Court has ruled in previous decisions that this doesn’t just mean the right to put a piece of paper in a box. We are guaranteed the right to effective representation.”

At the press conference Smith announced that, Fair Vote Canada, Canada’s national citizens’ movement for electoral reform will contribute $10,000 in matching funding to support a challenge in the Supreme Court of Canada.

“The damage done by first-past-the-post extends from the voting box to the very degradation of political discourse in this country,” added Green Party Leader Elizabeth May. “When a party can achieve majority control over the entire country with as little as 38% it is evident that our voting system delivers unfair and anti-democratic results.”

“Having gone through the courts in Quebec only to have our empirical evidence and expert testimony virtually ignored, we are hoping that the Supreme Court will hear our appeal and give our case due consideration,” said Brian Gibb from the Association for the Advancement of Democratic Rights and one of the principle plaintiffs in the case.  “We anticipate that the Court will render its decision on whether to hear our case within the next six months.”

The post May and Fair Vote Canada Support Court Challenge of First-Past-the-Post appeared first on Elizabeth May.